Last week the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America decided to allow gays in “life-long, monogamous” relationships to serve as clergy and professional lay leaders in the church. The question left unanswered, however, was, “Whose definition of monogamy would be used?”
One of the unspoken assumptions in the debate over gay marriage is that monogamy is equally valued by both gay and straight couples. While far too many heterosexuals opt for a form of serial monogamy””marriage, divorce, remarriage””it is still generally understood that sexual fidelity is too be expected within the bounds of marriage. The same assumption, however, is not necessarily true within homosexual relations.
Many same-sex marriage advocates will naturally find such a claim shocking, if not scurrilous. The “It’s about love” crowd have often been strong on empathy while weak on their understanding of how homosexual relationships tend to differ from those of heterosexuals. (It also seems to have escaped their notice that marriage may not be the only term that homosexual activists want to redefine.) But this isn’t a controversial idea””at least it wasn’t until the recently.
Until a few years ago, many gay activists freely admitted that the traditional view of monogamy was a heterosexual ideal that did not apply to homosexual relationships.
A great article, and very timely. Joe Carter is absolutely right. The LGBT crowd wants to redefine monogamy along with marriage itself.
After all, in a postmodern world, who can impose their definition of either term on anyone else? In a worldview where there are no objective, universal truths or standards, it all inevitably comes down to a mere calculus of raw power. And might literally makes right, by fiat.
I bet Andrew Sullivan (whom Carter aptly cites) now regrets being so open and candid in the past about how extremely rare is true fidelity among gay men. Alas, for them, the dirty secret that’s scarcely veiled is that having multiple sexual partners even while being in a supposedly “committed” relationship is the norm, not the exception.
One only wishes that this calm, well-written [b]First Things[/b] article could be force fed to the American population at large. A lot of people would gag. And wake up.
David Handy+
“Infidelity statistics
It’s tough to get a handle on how many of us are having affairs, given the inherent secrecy.
Younger people are more likely candidates; in fact, younger women are as likely as younger men to be unfaithful.
70 percent of married women and 54 percent of married men did not know of their spouses’ extramarital activity.
5 percent of married men and 3 percent of married women reported having sex with someone other than their spouse in the 1997.
22 percent of men and 14 percent of women admitted to having sexual relations outside their marriage sometime in their past.
17 percent of divorces in the United States are caused by infidelity.”
Source: Associated Press
I think the key here is “admitted.” People after all, generally don’t readily admit to something that is socially taboo. Given the statistics and the general trend for infidelity to be more common in the younger generation, i don’t really see the point here. I’m not saying it’s a good thing. But i just don’t see any “redefining” going on.
From the article:
[blockquote]Frances Donovan, who has “experience on both sides of the monogamy fence†and ducts workshops on that topic at educator and youth conferences, believes nonmonogamy is a negative definition. She prefers polyamory—the ability to love more than one person at a time—and says the key to successful polyamory is open, honest communication. At one workshop, participants listed several benefits of polyamory, including freedom, love, happiness, and trust.
Which brings us to two specific types of polyamory: threesomes and open relationships. Perhaps surprisingly, some of the strongest advocates for monogamy view threesomes with equanimity.[/blockquote]
For whatever it’s worth, it’s my opinion that this – polyamory – is the blueprint for the redefinition of marriage, relationships, the whole package. It’s all well and good to want “gay marriage,” but what will be the progressive spin when three gay men show up at the rector’s door wanting to be “blessed” or “married?”
Have no doubt. This [i]is[/i] reality.
Adultery would be grounds for divorce in a same-sex marriage, just as it is in heterosexual marriage, so all the article seems to be saying is that maybe gay people (or only gay men?) are more likely to tolerate a spouse’s adultery. I haven’t seen anything proposed that would institutionalize such a tolerance of adultery– in fact, if gay people get “married,” aren’t they choosing a relationship where they might suffer monetarily for infidelity (i.e., by exposing themselves to a divorce proceeding where the guilty spouse looks unsympathetic)?
So Mark, if people fall short of a virtue, we should redefine the virtue to include its absence, so we can regard ourselves as virtuous? I don’t have a theology degree, so I’m having trouble here.
People fall short of the mark. All people. Therefore, all people need forgiveness. Pointing here and there to find those who fall shorter than others, just doesn’t seem to take us anywhere. At least to me. I’m not terribly interested in what some gay “talking head” says anymore than i am in the other vast array of “talking heads” have to say to us. After all, they make their daily bread by sound bits that get attention.
4, well actually in most states you don’t need any grounds for divorce.
6, sort of like an entitlement?
We all fall short of the mark…so let’s move the mark, shall we?
The revolution is just beginning, people. Expect worse, and soon.
One might assert monogamy as an ethical standard in SS’M’s, perhaps based on a some sort of prudential judgment. However, there is insubstantial biblical basis for exporting the morality of Christian marriage into such relationships; it would be akin to trying to create an ethic for practicing a form of blessed coveting.
🙄
Actually, at this point, I am content to let the reappraisers defend monogamy within same sex unions. If they want to, of course.
Of course, perhaps monogamy (like any word) is subject to the dicta of Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty, who stated that a word meant exactly what he said it meant, neither more nor less.
#6, I think you miss the point. We all know everyone misses the mark. The point is whether the redefinition of “monogamy” by homosexuals will also redefine it for heterosexuals. For all of those like the Dean of the Cathedral of St Philip in Atlanta, who chaired the Liturgy Cmte at the last 3 GCs, who say that approving SSMs creates no threat to the institution of marriage, I would suggest they look at the redefinitions that have gone on for some years now for such words as an example, “fornication” (no longer sex outside marriage – but redefined to mean “using someone for sex that you don’t really love”), and now “monogamy.” As has been said before, nose of the camel under the tent, next thing you know …. And it’s proving true, isn’t it.
Billy, straight people have already redefined marriage, without anybody else’s help, as one of the other commentators noted. Blaming gay people for following what straight people already do is itself missing the mark.
What might be different is the attitude, which might look a bit like European attitudes toward sex. But I don’t see what the church has to do with it. When people start asking the church to bless adultery, we’ve got a problem.
John, you also are missing my point. We all know straight people are not monogamous. But we don’t say it is ok, and we know what we mean by “monogamous.” This article and other homosexual apologists are attempting to redefine monogamy to either serial monogamy or continuous co-habitation, regardless of sexual forays outside the relationship. They are also attempting to say that such definitions of monogamy are sufficient for SSBs (and for marriage of homosexuals), even though we all know that no such definitions were in the mind of the heteros who voted for Gene Robinson or for the two most recent resolutions from GC 2009, when all we heard was this only applied to monogamous homosexuals persons in committed relationships. Now the can is being kicked down the road further and it is only a matter of time before heteros begin to say, “good enough for homosexuals, good enough for me,” and the church will just have to accept it and marry me anyway or bless my marriage anyway, or as a priest in the church, I can have an open marriage because homosexuals can. In fact, if the church is going to bless SSBs, and homosexuals whose SS relationships have no intention from the beginning of staying sexually faithful to that relationship, is not the church already blessing adultery. In fact, let’s face it, with the ease of divorce and remarriage in TEC (look at Bp Righter), doesn’t TEC already, in effect, bless adultery. Would the apostles of the early church approve of Bp Righter’s behavior and allow him to remain an apostle. (I’ll predict, John, that you do not respond to any of this.)
[blockquote]When people start asking the church to bless adultery, we’ve got a problem. [/blockquote]
Didn’t it already do that with Gene Robinson?
[i] Slightly edited. [/i]
Billy, you have undershot the point you are making. It is not merely monogamy among heterosexuals or homosexuals. Heterosexuals may be adulterous, but they also know that they are violating a standard. This is clearlhynot the case with homosexuals. Rather, the issue arises from the left wing desire to destroy all established standards with which they disagree, and this matches well with the homosexual agenda to redefine all social relationships so that their abnormal form becomes normative. The undertaking to redefine is both breathtakiing and frightening in its scope and in its success so far.
There will be, sooner or later, a strong reaction to this attempt to break and recast. In the past, the homosexuals, keeping to themselves by and large, could carry on a social life radically unacceptable to the rest of society. Now, it is increasingly out in the open how radical a transformation they want, and many people, who were ambivalent about homo/hetero relationships will now have a far more hostile view of the issue, for they will see, as a fact, that this is not simply a matter of tweaking a social construct or righting a civil wrong, but a deliberate attempt to transform normal society in radical and unsavory ways. Larry
I’m really amused. We’ve got a lot of experts about homosexual relationships here. I think that they are a bit more complex, and that there are plenty of gay people who will get divorced if they feel their partners are truly adulterous.
Larry, “heterosexuals know they are violating a standard.” Really? All of them? After all, Ashley Madison is a very popular site these days.
The church has every right to uphold a standard. Unfortunately, it also has confession, forgiveness and reconciliation. We are still loved, even though we fall short.
John, you are again missing the point, so I have to respond. No one is saying that all homosex relationships are non-monogamous (in the traditional meaning of the term). The point is that the homosex lobby, as shown by this article, is attempting to change the meaning of the word, “monogamy,” to include the opposite of the traditional definition.
The fact that porn websites are viewed by heteros does not mean they don’t know it is against moral standards. As you say, we all miss the mark.
Also, your word, “unfortunately” is an unfortunate use of sarcasm, which is unbecoming of a priest (or anyone) in a discussion like this. We all know that we are still loved, even when we fall short, and I would submit that in using the traditional definition of monogamy, we all know to confess and seek forgiveness and reconciliation. But if the definition is changed, like the definition of “fornication” has been changed, then will there be a standard that one can use to seek forgiveness and reconciliation, or will it be like “fornication” now, that there is no need to consider confession, forgiveness or reconciliation, because sex outside of marriage for a single person is no longer a sin, if one does not believe he/she is actually using the other person and has genuine feelings for the other person. If you change the meaning of words to suit your own needs, then what do you have left to guide your life or faith? Only the secular world … and it is apparent that is where TEC has gone and will continue, unless its priests and bishops step up and stop it or a lay revolution occurs, which is improbable but not impossible.
Let me give you a benign example from your own writings in the past of where you are guided by the secular world, instead of using the Lord’s Word as guidance … you have written in the past about the problem in around your church with soccer games and other sports games for kids interfering with church or competing with church? Question: Have you ever told the parents in a sermon or in a conversation or talk or in a bulletin or newsletter or in anyway, that church should come first, not soccer games? We always have a big celebration of the first Sunday in Advent at our church, and often it falls on the Sunday after Thanksgiving. Our rector in his sermons and in his announcements leading up to that Sunday tells our people to get back from their visiting during the Thanksgiving weekend to celebrate the beginning of Advent … and many of our parishioners do that. Do you do that?
As our Lord said, we are to be in the world, but not of the world.
Honest question – in the case of SSM and remarriage after divorce, is the actual sin just in the sex act, or in being married to the “wrong” partner?