Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Object_Cache::$global_prefix is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/object-cache.php on line 468

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Object_Cache::$blog_prefix is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/object-cache.php on line 469

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Object_Cache::$cache_hits is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/object-cache.php on line 475

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Object_Cache::$cache_misses is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/object-cache.php on line 476
A secular argument against gay marriage – AOI – The American Orthodox Institute – USA

AOI – The American Orthodox Institute – USA

A secular argument against gay marriage

From: Gay Marriage — and Marriage by Sam Shulman.

To me, what is at stake in this debate is not only the potential unhappiness of children, grave as that is; it is our ability to maintain the most basic components of our humanity. I believe, in fact, that we are at an “Antigone moment.” Some of our fellow citizens wish to impose a radically new understanding upon laws and institutions that are both very old and fundamental to our organization as individuals and as a society. As Antigone said to Creon, we are being asked to tamper with “unwritten and unfailing laws, not of now, nor of yesterday; they always live, and no one knows their origin in time.” I suspect, moreover, that everyone knows this is the case, and that, paradoxically, this very awareness of just how much is at stake is what may have induced, in defenders of those same “unwritten and unfailing laws,” a kind of paralysis.

By secular Shulman means non-religious, but Christianity properly understood makes no distinction between wisdom found outside of the Church from that found within it.

The Apostle Paul speaks of “the wisdom of the world” but there it means a kind of assumption of wisdom where none in fact exists. Reducing all wisdom to within the Church is merely the reverse of the secular paradigm, imposing a categorical distinction equally false. From the secular side it is a blindness towards the sacred dimension of existence; from the Christian side it is the belief that wisdom outside the Church is not possible. The distinction (which even believers in the sacramental churches — Orthodox, Catholic, some Lutherans and Episcopalians, etc. — have assimilated) is bound to modernistic assumptions — opposite sides of the same coin really.

It’s fitting then, that such wisdom, although not drawn from Christian texts, is thoroughly Christian in insight and character — how could it be any other way? That it is given to us in narrative is even more appropriate.

Posted

in

by

Fr. Johannes Jacobse

Tags:

,

Comments

31 responses to “A secular argument against gay marriage”

  1. A Secular Argument Against Gay Marriage | OrthodoxNet.com Blog

    […] HT: AOI […]

    Reply
  2. Harry Coin

    The thing that really disturbs me is when a man while his kids are younger than college decides the whole ‘gay movement’ gives him and whatever realizations he has some manner of permission or excuse to ‘twinkle tra-la’ off into his new life of promiscuity and, oh by the bye, break up his marriage and burden his kids with his new fancy issues — because really it is all about him, yes? So special.

    When these people decide ‘gay identity theology/morality’ trumps any prior promises and life obligations previously accepted.

    Reply
    1. Eliot Ryan

      Harry,

      Unfortunately not only those who choose the gay lifestyle later in their life break up their marriages causing great emotional distress to children. The ‘divorce plague’ is caused by a combination of lack of maturity on the parents side, egoism and worldliness. They are living only for this earthly life failing to understand that “our life — is a minute compared to eternity”.

      http://www.sowingseedsoffaith.com/divorce1.htm

      The price for marital breakup is always high.

      The statistics are cold and clear.

      · Fifty percent of those who marry today will divorce.

      · On the stress scale, divorce and separation are ranked 2nd and 3rd. Only the death of a spouse is rated higher.

      · More than 80 percent of those who are divorced will remarry within three years and 65 percent of those marriages will fail again.

      · More than a million children each year are involved in divorce and more than 13 million children under 18 live with one parent so that single parent families are growing at a rate twenty times faster than two parent families.

      Gay activists believe that the church is the barrier to worldwide acceptance of homosexuality and once the church changes, the debate will be over. The Church cannot change God’s truth and still remain the Church.

      They show intolerance toward any discussion of the possibility that homosexuals could defeat their temptations and live normal lives. Homosexuality is a sin and any sin can be overcome. The man has the capability to strive toward sanctification which is ‘the total complete cessation and mortification of desire in the senses’.

      Reply
  3. Fr. Johannes Jacobse

    A couple of years ago at a reception for a baptism I was approached by a couple (sought out by them actually). They were from another city so I didn’t know them and completely secularized in their thinking. The conversation moved to talk about their son, about 24 or so, who refused to get married until homosexuals can get married. I asked if he was gay and they said no. So why is he doing it I asked. They answered he was a principled man, stood against discrimination — you know the drill.

    What to say to them I thought. Then it came to me.

    “Gays can get married,” I said.

    “What do you mean?” they asked.

    They can get married, they just can’t marry someone of the same sex. There’s no discrimination here. You can’t marry someone of the same sex either.”

    Reply
    1. Harry Coin

      Good for you! Usually I think of ‘just the right thing to say’ about a week too late.

      Reply
    2. George Michalopulos

      Fr, brilliant! How about trying this on for size the next time such a “principled” couple comes forward: “OK, so why don’t you all get divorced then?”

      Reply
  4. Chris Banescu

    Eliot,

    re: “Gay activists believe that the church is the barrier to worldwide acceptance of homosexuality and once the church changes, the debate will be over. The Church cannot change God’s truth and still remain the Church.”

    That is correct. No one, not even the Church, can ever change God’s truth and deny the reality of the human condition.

    The Moral (or Natural) Law of humanity is something true and real and exists whether or not a specific religion, religious group, or the state chooses to acknowledge it or not. The very idea of “gay marriage” is not only a distortion that is contrary to God’s laws, Christ’s teaching, and the Scriptures, but a corruption that denies the very essence of what it means to be human and the normal and natural relationships between men and women.

    Reply
    1. Peter Evans

      Gay “marriage” is NOT marriage. It’s as simple as that. True marriage is what it is… a unique fulfillment of both aspects of humanity. Nothing we do will change the truth that is marriage.

      However loving, faithful, intimate and honest the relationship between two men or two women, that relationship is not, and cannot be, marriage. If we drop literally thousands of years of precedent and call such matches “marriages” we will have done nothing to improve the real condition of those involved, but simply shoved a hitherto useful word closer to meaninglessness.

      What is at risk is the degradation of our understanding of the truth. By admitting the use of the phrase “gay marriage” we contribute to our own confusion and enslavement to un-truth.

      Those of us who wish to speak truth will compensate by using additional qualifiers like ‘real’ or ‘traditional’ or ‘straight’ or ‘Christian’ to designate a one-man-one-woman union. But the net effect of calling any union a marriage will be to reduce precision and increase confusion. In this country, as Fr J. points out, everyone has the right to marry, but NOT the right to change the meaning of the word to something else. Even kids know that would be “so gay.”

      Marriage has been (and should continue to be) privileged and endowed by society and the state with special rights and benefits, because of its recognized value and primordial significance. Other unions are not thus privileged because “everybody knows” they are not of similar value.

      Reply
  5. RZ

    “[Gays] can get married, they just can’t marry someone of the same sex.”

    How successful are marriages between gay men and heterosexual women, do you suppose?

    Men: would you marry a woman who was predominantly attracted to other women?
    Women: would you marry a man predominantly attracted to other men?

    Reply
    1. George Michalopulos

      RZ, history is full of homosexuals who were married. Often successfully so. One of the dark secrets of human sexuality is that categories like homosexuality and heterosexuality are not that clearly delineated within a particular human being. A prime example would be Lord Byron.

      I’m not talking about the morality here of homoerotic or heterosexual non-marital unions, just the psychology of them. I know that this is going to sound offensive to the gay Brownshirts which police all “gay” thought, but there is a growing literature of men who actually leave homo-eroticism and do become attracted to women. There’s also an even larger coterie of men who remain attracted to men throughout their lives but because of moral conviction choose not to act on their feelings. The late writer Dominick Dunne was one such man as was Oscar Wilde. T E Lawrence (“Lawrence of Arabia”) was definitely an odd character who because of his deep Christian conviction never acted on his possible desires (with men or women).

      Even Andrew Sullivan (a gay-rights Grand Inquisitor if there ever was one) believes that before Freud categorized homosexuality as a psychological abnormality (which I believe it is), that there was more homoerotic relations going on on a transitory basis between men. In his eyes’ Freud “stigmatized” homosexuality and thus created an issue where none existed in the first place. I’m not sure I buy that, the frequency of acts, but he does have a point. In most pagan societies, same-sex relations were par for the course for men, who upon adulthood were expected to get married and produce children. The one stunning exception to this was Israel, where all forms of homosexuality were punishable by death.

      Reply
      1. Fr. Johannes Jacobse

        A good article: Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality.

        Reply
      2. Eliot Ryan

        George,

        There’s also an even larger coterie of men who remain attracted to men throughout their lives but because of moral conviction choose not to act on their feelings.

        This is very powerful and can be expanded. Moral values are the standards of good and evil, which may derive from culture, a system of laws, or from religion. This set of moral values governs individual’s behavior and choices.

        Christian moral values go beyond culture’s mores and selfish instincts. A Christian is striving to behave correctly because he loves God and wants to please Him. It is not easy, it can be a titanic struggle, but if after many moments of struggle, one finally decides not to commit murder (abortion), adultery or fornication, not to cheat, steal, etc, it means that he has overcome sin. One can overcome even the temptation of suicide. Suicide is the sin of self-murder, increasingly viewed as an acceptable means of solving one’s problems.

        The way to victory is to bring our sorrows and struggles to God and take refuge in Him. Many people find it much easier to take refuge in men. Perhaps it is not that they find it much easier, it is the only way they know. Satan’s most diabolic trick was to remove God from people’s minds and hearts.

        Reply
  6. Eliot Ryan

    EU promotes tolerance of everything except Christianity. The pro-gay parades are propaganda of sin, and a counter-cultural stand against the radical homosexual agenda is needed. School children, especially, need protection from pro-homosexual indoctrination.

    Spanish psychiatrist Enrique Rojas declared that homosexuality is “a clinical process that has an etiology, pathogeny, treatment, and cure”.

    Rojas blasted the homosexual movement for promoting the development of homosexual tendencies in young people, and particularly condemned the practice of allowing homosexual couples to adopt children.

    The child is deprived of a right to grow up “in a normal environment, heterosexual, which is the standard” he said. “Heterosexuality is what is normal, the natural condition of human beings.”
    http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08050110.html

    The strongest forces currently standing against the homosexual movement are former communist countries.

    Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov reiterated his firm opposition to gay pride parades in his city. “For several years, there has been unprecedented pressure put on Moscow, demanding a gay pride parade, something that I can only call a satanic act. http://02varvara.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/mayor-luzhkov-labelled-gay-parades-%E2%80%9Csatanic-acts%E2%80%9D/

    In October 2000, a Beijing court ruled that homosexuality was “abnormal and unacceptable to the Chinese public” [Washington Post 24 Jan. 2000], which was the first time the official attitude was stated openly. http://www.fact-index.com/h/ho/homosexuality_in_china.html

    This is quite interesting since in the beginning Communist parties were promoting gay rights.

    The Bolsheviks repealed anti-gay laws when they took power in Russia, and supported the pro-gay World League for Sexual Reform throughout the 1920s. The German Social Democratic and Communist parties were the gay movement’s best allies in the 1920s.

    Communists in many countries obediently turned their back on their earlier stands and began to identify gays with bourgeois decadence and even fascism.

    They are trying to suppress opposing views or criticism (BTW, this is called fascism). More and more people are capitulating to homosexual pressure campaigns. Soon they will come in churches to pressure to get married.

    http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/10c/aftah_conf/threat_0804.html

    If a homosexual group were holding a private event at a private location (and not involving public money) most of us would just ignore it. At the most, we’d be interested in quietly finding out what was going on. But the idea of trying to disrupt it and terrorize the participants and claiming that they don’t have the right to even hold such a meeting is foreign to most Americans’ thought process.

    But the homosexual movement sees the world differently. They believe that disagreeing opinions them don’t have a right to exist. They have no problem using fascist and barbaric tactics to harass, intimidate, and silence people. The ends justify the means.

    “The Gay Gene Hoax” silences pro-gay crowd at Framingham State College
    http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/born_gay_hoax/index.html

    Reply
    1. George Michalopulos

      Eliot, thanks for all this info. I personally believe that homosexuality is one of the lynchpins of a pagan worldview. The Sturmabteiling (SA, also called the Brownshirts) were the backbone of Hitler’s rise to power. In them, we saw the perfect confluence of Aryan/Nordic paganism, Gaia-worship, and the Darwinian struggle for life.

      Although there is presently celebrated a marked feminine component to the modern homosexual movemenent in America in the entertainment industry, I predict that these will be weeded out and/or made objects of ridicule by the masculinist component which will become increasinly fascistic and militaristic.

      The contempt for effeminate men under this scenario will most likey result in homosexuality in the West probably sorting itself out as it was in ancient Greece: a masculinist contingent that preys on young boys and adolescents. This will further stratify society along class lines and become the backbone of a new pagan culture which is more patriarchal than what we have now and far more misogynistic.

      Reply
      1. Eliot Ryan

        George,
        There is a whole battle going on to justify this sin, and conceal the truth. People desperately need to justify sin in order to avoid imposing guilty feelings upon themselves.

        “Sinful Souls” by Fr. Justin Popovich

        Sin is the only thing that is unnatural in the nature of man and of the world. Stranger, alien, intruder, criminal, executioner, homicide-this is sin in everyone of us. But, in its destructive power, this sin is something worse and more horrible than all else. What? In its essence, in its energy, it is identified with the Devil since it also corrupts and destroys. According to the unrivaled definition of St. John Chrysostom “Satan is sin”. Within this definition lies the entire “mystery of sin and lawlessness” and the entire power of sin and the entire hell of iniquity. There exists no Satan without sin, and no sin without Satan. Even in the smallest sin the devil is concealed. Satan is uncharitable to man because “sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death’ (James 1: 15), and “the wages of sin is death’ (Romans 6: 23). This is the final atrocity of sin: death. The experience of the human race testifies that sin and death are identical destructive energies of the devil. With these, the Devil holds man is his horrible embrace. But for how long? As long as man remains unrepentant. The one who repents according to God’s will is saved.

        Reply
        1. George Michalopulos

          Eliot, this is one of the reasons I feel that we are too eager as a society (and in many cases, church) throw in the towel to accommodate “gay marriage.” For once we do that, then why stop there? If homosexual urges are so strong and natural in some people, then what about the polygynous urges of straight men? At least the Moslems make accommodation for these through the practice of polygamy and even on occasion sanction prostitution. Why are homosexuals allowed the dispensation to act on their urges but not married men? Why won’t the vaious churches that now sanction homosexuality do likewise with polyamory?

          Reply
          1. Harry Coin

            While many things are possible, only some things are helpful.

            I have actual compassion for those who are not attracted to anyone, are disordered to dislike/hate someone because of their sex, or who want to have sexual activity with almost anyone almost anytime, and those whose preferences are limited to persons other than the body’s architecture so plainly is crafted.

            I submit having such a condition may not be a manner of choice, but it is no great honor either.

            Reply
          2. Eliot Ryan

            That is correct, once we do that, then why stop there? I believe the others wont go very far unless supported by the same powerful political and financial forces. To me it is obvious that this is the case with the homosexual movement. They receive money from various “benefactors“.
            See Homosexual Media Target Christians

            But some aren’t buying. “This is a man-and by the way he is a man; he’s not a woman-who is one of the leaders in crusading for so-called ‘civil rights’ based on gender-confused behavior,” Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth was quoted as saying by onenewsnow.com “Gender identity disorder” is “a recognized mental illness that should be treated-not affirmed and protected,” points out Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council.

            Reply
      2. Harry Coin

        George,

        Perhaps you should consider adding to your thinking the results of a major demographic and socioligical shift: Sex with women before 100 or so years ago was a life-threatening event as pregnancy often resulted in the woman’s death. Families intervened to protect their girls with poorer judgement and the more intelligent women knew full well the risks as half of them didn’t make it to their mid 20’s.

        There was a fraction of men who, shall we say, ‘acted the part of the male’ with ‘homosexual boys/men’, until they married and could find normal outlet for, well ‘their needs’ shall we call it.

        In today’s world where gay sex carries horrific risk of fearsome disease, while normal sex carries (historically comparitively speaking) almost no risk I wonder why there is such fuss really.

        Sometimes I think the reason there is support for the Mosque At Ground Zero is that if it is denied it means the society has moved to block an activity on the basis of the optional views held to be unpopular by a supermajority. This sort of energy is a threat to the agenda of acceptance of gay promiscuity.

        Noting the enormous promiscuity among gay males (10, 100x the female) I wonder why they are pushing so hard for what appears to defacto amount to mostly a bonanza for divorce attorneys.

        Reply
        1. Isa Almisry

          A radio commentator here swears gay marriage comes from the salivating divorce attorneys who see missing business.

          Next up: polygamy. I think the first legal multi-marriages should be held at the ground zero mosque.

          Reply
          1. George Michalopulos

            I agree with Greg Gutfeld, that a gay bar be built next door to the mosque or that gay couples show up demanding to be married.

            The best remark came from Rush the other day. He asked what gay couples were going to do now that a federal judge put a stay on the overturning of Prop 8. It’s unfair to ask them to abstain from sex utnil the issue was resolved.

            Reply
  7. George Michalopulos

    Lot’s to chew on there Harry. My take is now more of a spiritual/inter-personal relationship one. I’ve been reading some snippets from the Church Fathers and they pretty much nail it: they say that homoerotic relations distort the normal relationship between men and women. Their sentiments are very pro-woman. In many cultures where homosexuality is enshrined, misogyny is the inevitable result. Many gay thinkers regard man-boy love as superior to that of man-woman love. This reinforces Gnosticism which hates the body and procreation.

    Reply
    1. another 49 year old female

      You can see this hatred for normal sexual relations between men and women when you hear those who support gay marriage call heterosexuals, “breeders.” Or when some of them speak about homosexuality as a boon for the environment because we need to stop procreating. I see it as part of the death culture so many secular people embrace.

      Reply
  8. RZ

    George writes: “In many cultures where homosexuality is enshrined, misogyny is the inevitable result”

    Do you feel that the Old Testament is “pro-woman”? Polygamy was the norm, women were forced to marry their rapists (Deuteronomy 22:28) and were even assigned less monetary value than men (Leviticus 27:6). This was not a “pro-gay” culture, though.

    Reply
    1. Harry Coin

      RZ, What George writes is what I conclude from the history as well. While completely awful compared to today’s recognition and value of the human person without degree varying due to any other aspect– Judiasm’s imposing economic obligations upon the husband and legal protections to the wife was a big, big step up. And also as clearly the Jewish culture was the first to emphasize and eventually require that a marraige be only one husband, one wife — and that leaving the wife ‘just because’ was a big problem.

      Christianity followed suit and led to more protections and better treatment of the woman, eventually equal political rights as well.

      In many ways we see the Islamic effort including Sharia law and the covering-up in public requirements as a push-back against the personhood of the woman, putting on them requirements because of Islam’s fatalistic view that men need not attempt self control.

      We see men in the USA who prefer to have lots of sex and little obligation to what happens next favoring ‘their brand’ of Islam. I venture that’s one of the reasons Islamic leadership likes the vagueness of the Koran, whoever has the most pull can, within broad limits, define what ‘is’ means for a season.

      I admit to being puzzled a little about why Islam is so crazy murderous about homosexual men. Obviously the straight men couldn’t much care less about other men gay or not, and would think a homosexual man of no competitive interest re: women. If the straight man doesn’t care whether the gay man lives or dies why the revulsion? Plainly in the modern context gay sex might well and truly get you killed, bisexual men might cause babies to be born with a fatal STD.

      But back in the day, why should a striaght man interested in accumulating wives think of a gay man as anything but unthreatening labor? Why the requirement to kill them? Maybe because they fear the rape of boys, is that it?

      Reply
      1. George Michalopulos

        Harry, I think the crazed hatred of some Muslims for homosexuals may come from their own guilt feelings. Just a guess.

        Reply
        1. Harry Coin

          How does being/feeling guilty translate into wanting a death penalty for someone else?

          Reply
  9. George Michalopulos

    RZ, it was a polygamous culture though. As far as women being forced to marry their rapists, this was a step up for women, previous to this time, women who were raped were killed (it was their “fault”) and/or shunned by their rapists and society at large. By forcing the man to marry them, they were being offered protection from death and/or shunning, including economic protection.

    We must remember that OT times were violent. A lot of what we decry were likewise improvments in the human condition. “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” was likewise a more merciful restraint on the innate violence that usually led to mutilation or murder for an insult or trauma.

    Reply
  10. Fr. Johannes Jacobse

    Absolutely correct George. The “eye for an eye” introduced retributive justice, a concept light years ahead of the primitive vengeance of the time which was more along the lines of “a death for an eye.”

    Reply
  11. cynthia curran

    Well, this true about the Greeks and a certainly true about the Romans. Read Suetonius life of the tweleve Caesars. What I also find out that some gays and lesbians that tend to be fiscal conservatives and of course social liberals pushed gay and lesbian marriage less than their left wing counterparts which don’t care what the general public thinks. Granted, I prefer Tami Bruce to someone like Jim Wallis. She is one of these lesbian conservatives.

    Reply
    1. George Michalopulos

      Tammy’s great. A clear thinker. I also like Camille Paglia, very incisive. She calls herself a “libertarian democrat” but she sounds very much like a social conservative to me. Or at least someone who appreciates the conservative values.

      Reply

Leave a Reply to Eliot Ryan Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Notice: ob_end_flush(): Failed to send buffer of zlib output compression (0) in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 5481