(SMH) Elizabeth Farrelly–Let's shoot straight on gay marriage

Hagelin finished with classic Billy Graham-type exhortations to ”commit with me to this battle for God’s best today . . . to testify that God’s design for marriage is perfect, to show that marriage under any other definition is a lie . . . Will you . . . stand for marriage?”

And there you have it. It’s all there in a couple of sentences: the presumption of personal access to God’s will, the vilification of any other take on that and the arrogated right to impose that judgment not just on your own life, but universally.

It’s an elision to do any dictator proud. The logic goes like this: I’m right. Not just right for me, but right, period. You are therefore wrong, period. So you must do what I believe to be right, because anything else amounts to an attack by you on my command of divine truth, and therefore on God.

Read it all.


Posted in * Culture-Watch, * International News & Commentary, * Religion News & Commentary, --Civil Unions & Partnerships, Australia / NZ, Law & Legal Issues, Marriage & Family, Other Faiths, Religion & Culture, Secularism, Sexuality

9 comments on “(SMH) Elizabeth Farrelly–Let's shoot straight on gay marriage

  1. m+ says:

    The article and the follow up comments underneath are a good demonstration of the gap that divides the two sides of the issue. I wish the pro-traditional side had a better representation, but the writer intended to make her opposition appear irrational and hateful. The solution does not lie in education or listening better. I know in my case, that I understand what the pro- gay marriage side is saying. I think that Scripture, Tradition, and Reason shows that they’re wrong. But what do you do when the opposing side is equally resolute? Resort to public shaming (as this author recommends), to defeating the opposition through legislation (as is being tried), or to outright armed conflict (which I don’t think will happen)? We’re in for “interesting times.”

  2. Sarah says:

    RE: “Resort to public shaming . . . ”

    That’s an old tactic which didn’t work. Heaven knows that for years the revisionist Episcopalians tried public shaming and people were silent — but post-2003 the outcry simply became more vociferous. In many parts of TEC now clergy are smart enough to hide their revisionism because they know search committees won’t pick them otherwise. Nobody’s ashamed — not in the least — about being opposed to giving societal approval to one particular currently faddish minority sexual orientation.

    That’s why they now need to resort to violence and to the courts to try to overturn legislation. They know now that the people will vote to keep the same definition of marriage as always.

  3. sophy0075 says:

    When Christians quote from the Bible, it is called hate-mongering. When writers such as this lady resort to epithets about Christians, such as “nutters” and worse, it is called — nothing. Hmm. Not even a double standard; worse.

  4. m+ says:

    #1. right. public shaming doesn’t work to change the individual, but it does often keep those on the sidelines from joining in, thus giving the public appearance of “victory.”
    #2. I’m beginning to think that’s it’s not so much a double standard, but rather that their definition simply has no place for the traditional definition. In other words, the two points of view cannot co-exist. All the talk of tolerance and mutual love are meaningless in light of the intrinsic contradiction between the two.

  5. Bookworm(God keep Snarkster) says:

    I realize the separation of Church and state is nowhere in the Constitution, but strident diatribes like this beg questions of the differences between the secular(government) and the sacred.

    That said, if someone asked if I would “vote” for civil gay marriage, the answer to that would be NO because I am tired of watching civil issues being used as alleged “rights” to skewer churches into doing things that are either against their beliefs or consciences, or both.

    “…the presumption of personal access to God’s will, the vilification of any other take on that”…

    I don’t “presume” *jack*, I simply believe the Scriptures to be the revealed Word of God. I haven’t vilified anyone for having different beliefs than mine. Doesn’t this whole caustic piece vilify anyone with the traditional viewpoint? Puh-leeze…

    “Never mind that polygamy was standard Old Testament practice, that the church is demonstrably rife with paedophilia or that Jesus had two fathers. Never mind the sheer illogic of arguing that straight people must be married in order to nurture children but gay people, even when procreating, must not”.

    Yes, there is a stronger case in the Bible for polygamy vis-a-vis homosex. And it’s my understanding that the RC Church, if the author is referring to it, is mostly rife with HOMOSEXUAL pedophilia. I’ve never denied that Jesus’s two fathers probably enriched his life. Gay people don’t “procreate” unless they’re, for some crazy reason, having sex with the opposite sex…funny how that conveniently works; I thought they were gay. And/or, they’re hiring surrogates, purchasing gametes, and supporting the ART industry. That is not “procreation”, that’s a business unless you want to do it all the old-fashioned way. But, the old-fashioned way might include coming out after your children are born, thus shattering that family. It’s truly hard to view any of this as “good”.

    “In my next life I want to be smug. I want to be one of those people who is so sure of their own superiority and beliefs that they feel duty-bound to impose them on everyone else”.

    Oh, you’re already there. Hence writing this shrill tripe in a public medium.

    “One day they were people you could at least argue with. The next they were popping off to prayer meetings every five minutes and treating all dissent with the stonewall condescension of the chosen.

    You could argue with them all day or week. You could be reasoned, calm and right – yet the response was unchanging; a pitying superiority based on divine access and an unassailable sense of right”.

    Oh, I’m not condescending. You’re insecure and defensive. And, thus far, I do have confidence in my beliefs and don’t care to change them, mostly because I’ve yet to see any of you come up with a valid argument that doesn’t include a whopping overhang of “ME” and a boatload of self-gratification.

    And I have no idea whether or not I’m “right”–God will let me know the answer to that when I meet Him. Meanwhile, from a Christian standpoint, homosex is not Christian, should not be “blessed”; and civilly I will vote against you but other than that, civilly, I don’t really care what you do. Marry your dog if you want to and can get lawyers and judges to agree with you.

    “Why do they feel dissent as a form of attack?”

    I don’t. Do you?

    “…the real threat to civilised life, depending as it does on the wilful abandonment of reason…”

    Is there a coherent argument here for gay marriage, other than “I want it”?!!

    And when the two views are diametrically opposed and neither will change, it seems to me the only options are a separation, stalemate, or armed truce. And the latter two buy time, nothing else.

    “In many parts of TEC now clergy are smart enough to hide their revisionism because they know search committees won’t pick them otherwise”.

    This is sadly also true when traditionalists want to do their work or they need a job, depending on where they are.

    The people I seriously question are “stalematers” or liberals in traditional places. I heard this mantra recently whilst visiting another part of my state. A clergyman with the view on this that “it need not be something that separates the Church” or “why do we have to spend so much time on this”? His views were represented to me by his spouse, as at the time, he wasn’t in the room. And I said, “Well, you can get away with that view because you live where you do. What will you do if you have to move, or the Church changes, such that Bill and Bob eventually come to your spouse and ask him, “Would you do our blessing or ‘marriage’–then what would he say? And, if he says “no”, be prepared for him to be labeled a ‘bigot'”…

    She said, “Well, I don’t know–he hasn’t yet been confronted with that scenario yet”.

    Brace up–the clock is ticking. And there is no middle ground–as clergy, you either do those ceremonies, or you don’t. And whatever action you choose, you also choose the consequences. To my mind, you’re either labeled a bigot or a bunch of your traditional members will walk out. All the potatoes, too, currently warming the pews will also have their day of reckoning and their choices to make. Run for now if you like, but you can’t hide. I don’t know when, but the time for decision-making will come.

  6. jamesw says:

    She concludes with

    It seems reasonable to me to fight for the right to run your life your way; to marry and procreate and worship by your own lights. But it is entirely unreasonable, absent some genuine threat to social order, to force these values on others.

    My response to this sort of argument (which is common amongst the pro-same sex “marriage” crowd) is to say this: “Fine, let’s have NEITHER of us force our values on others. You can go ahead and get married to your same-sex partner, but you can’t use government to force anyone else nor society to either accept, recognize, or prefer in ANY WAY, that marriage.”

    Homosexualist advocates will, of course, never accept such a compromise, because this is all about “forcing values on others” – forcing liberal values on to the rest of the population.

  7. Br. Michael says:

    Well, the question is, as I stated on another thread, given same sex marriage, which cannot pro-create, why should the State recognize marriage at all? Why should the State accord some people who are living together, different rights from others who are living together? What is the legitimate State interest?

    Gays want it because it legitimizes their sexual practices. Articles like this are written because they want legitimacy and validation. But if marriage is not for men and women and the children they produce as a natural consequence of that union, then what is it for that the state should care about it?

  8. jkc1945 says:

    Look, we are going to have “homosexual marriage.” We might as well get that through our heads; the moral slope we are on is a long one, but it bends toward chaos. (to twist M.L. King’s famous statement a little). And society will continue to insist that, in the name of the idol of ‘tolerance,’ we must do it – – it is required for ‘fairness.’
    Now. . . . you and I, and all honest-to-God Christians, will know in our hearts, that this is baloney, even as we see it happening. And when we see it, we can remember that our Lord also saw the baloney of non-belief and hypocrisy all around Him, but didn’t find it particularly necessary to actually do anything except let those folks who willingly choose it, to march into Hell with their eyes open.
    I don’t mean to sound “intolerant,” but that is the way it will be; our civilization is headed for a dark age of unknown duration, and we can still be lights, if we are willing to die to do it.

  9. Larry Morse says:

    #6 has the touch stone for all such arguments. It is thus again and again that those who declare that their opponents opinions should not be forced on others are in fact committing the same crime. This “argument” can therefore have no logical standing, for it removes all common ground – while appearing to do nothing of the sort. This is why it is used so often.
    The rest of this article deserves no one’s particular attention. We have heard this stridency, this venom, this name calling countless times. This is mere bullying of a commonplace sort.
    Why should the state pay attention to marriage? It shouldn’t, provided that civil benefits are conveyed by civil partnerships. What is necessary here is to recognize that the definition of marriage HAS changed, and for the better, at last, because we may now clearly separate the civil from the sacramental benefits. How much clearer the issue has become! Marriage, properly socalled, is only sacramental. All civil elements are available to all under civil contracts. Why is this so difficult to see, to grasp, to concede? Isn’t it no obvioous that this is the correct solution? Larry