tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post3494592916748312031..comments2023-12-17T16:13:06.670-05:00Comments on In a Godward direction: EngagementTobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-62555445245241092482009-11-10T16:33:18.103-05:002009-11-10T16:33:18.103-05:00Speaking as someone who is actually a Gay Scientis...Speaking as someone who is actually a Gay Scientist myself, let me completely disagree with the person posting under that name. It's the slippery slope argument, and it is a rhetorical straw man. And in this venue, verges on the trollish.IThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09605163506396013904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-3661445681138984482009-11-10T10:41:09.607-05:002009-11-10T10:41:09.607-05:00G.S., I am willing to be quoted, and remain open t...G.S., I am willing to be quoted, and remain open to discussion and exploration of ideas. That doesn't mean that after exploration I might not find that a "traditional" answer is the right one after all; but I am not automatically bound by the tradition.<br /><br />I did not mean to imply that "sexuality" is sound and rational. I'm referring to moral theology, which is at least as "rational" as psychology and biology, and perhaps physics and mathematics, in that it is a system of thought that is capable of expression in logical form, and deals with the data of life as it is actually lived.<br /><br />I am not saying that all people need be bound to a particular moral virtue, such as monogamy. What I am saying is that some people find monogamy to be a way of virtue, and that some of those are gay and some strait. I'm not suggesting that all people have to be monogamous -- as I noted, our own faith tradition includes those polygamous patriarchs who were not seen as less than righteous on account of polygamy. <br /><br />More specifically, I do not think that monogamy has been the primary tool of societal oppression / marginalization of GL people. (Witness polygamous Islam's or Mormonism's strongly anti-gay ethic.) So I don't accept your thesis except to the extent that when homosexuality is perceived or presented as "essentially" (as opposed to circumstantially) promiscuous it bumps up against an ideal of monogamy. But the fact is that the ideal of monogamy is not all that well observed in the heterosexual world, and as an ideal is used as much against polyamory among heterosexuals.<br /><br />I think that there are values to monogamy, but it is not for me to force anyone or everyone to accept those values. But provision should be made for those who do wish to accept that value (a value which I think can be objectively and rationally described), particularly in the civil realm. And for me that includes both gays and straits.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-14002825967966689592009-11-09T22:18:09.607-05:002009-11-09T22:18:09.607-05:00Tobias wrote: " ... I suppose anything is pos...Tobias wrote: " ... I suppose anything is possible."<br /><br />Oh my, you sure don't want to be quoted as saying <em>that</em> out there in Internet-land! The places we could go with such an admission could get us into ... well, let's just say, into places that are <em>interesting</em>!<br /><br />And since when is sexuality "sound and rational"? And isn't the project of trying to make it so one of binding our sexuality into the straitjacket of traditional heterosexual norms and expectations? And isn't that a project which makes us complicit in the very oppression which has reduced us to second or even third-class "citizens" in the church? Why should we put up with that? Why in the world would we buy into the oppression of "monogamy" when that's used so freely to slam the door in our faces?<br /><br />The Gay ScientistAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-86481381176258277172009-11-09T21:51:19.447-05:002009-11-09T21:51:19.447-05:00Thanks, Fran. Not the best timing for me, either, ...Thanks, Fran. Not the best timing for me, either, as I have to hustle to get to Poughkeepsie on time.<br /><br />R., I do think it probably was a matter of habit and convenience; I will have to look into the early history in Pennsylvania, as a Quaker foundation, they didn't have to contend with Lord Hardwicke. I'm sure Howard, in History of Matrimonial Institutions, must take note of such things.<br /><br />Marshall, money may have been at play, though from my reading that was not the primary thinking in Lord H's Act, which was apparently more a concern about clandestinity -- with a deliberate slap at "Papists" intended, too. But the $$ side of things may have made it go down easier for the Vicars collecting "the customary duty"...<br /><br />G.S., on the contrary I think there are quite sound rational arguments addressing potential and actual weaknesses and issues in polyamorous relationships, and I take that up at some length in <i>Reasonable and Holy</i>. Which is not to say I believe it absolutely impossible for such relationships to be capable of blessing and being blessed -- witness the patriarchs -- but even there the difficulties inherent in maintaining balance and reciprocity are evident. I think it unlikely, though, that the church will come to accept polyamory any time soon, if ever. At the same time, the church has come to accommodate blessing second marriages of divorced couples, so I suppose anything is possible. As to civil society, some jurisdictions in the world still permit polygamy for certain religious groups, though not, I think, in the U.S.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-6518622309247282262009-11-09T20:55:05.386-05:002009-11-09T20:55:05.386-05:00Do you think it possible that, just as we will soo...Do you think it possible that, just as we will soon come to see the "intellectual impoverishment and moral bankruptcy" of opposition to same-sex marriage, we may also come to see opposition to polyamory in the same light? Isn't it possible that polyamorous relationships can be holy and reasonable, too? And if so, shouldn't the church be prepared to bless them?<br /><br />The Gay ScientistAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-80127283650444587702009-11-09T20:25:36.286-05:002009-11-09T20:25:36.286-05:00For some reason, I had thought Lord Hardwicke'...For some reason, I had thought Lord Hardwicke's Act was passed to provide revenue to English parishes without having to raise the relevant taxes. There were, after all, fees involved in the legal parish wedding. That would explain why post-colonial parishes - and more to the point, post-colonial legislatures - might let the practice continue. When have either just let go of a source of income?Marshall Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02807749717320495495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-45408102634921238672009-11-09T19:39:24.258-05:002009-11-09T19:39:24.258-05:00Having dealt with this question pastorally recentl...Having dealt with this question pastorally recently (the couple moved on when I required the State take care of the legal aspects of the marriage), I have a hunch this entanglement lasted simply as a matter of convenience for the State and for couples. Revolution is meant to solve problems for the populace, and at the time, the church acting as the State's agent in marriage wasn't one of them.<br /><br />But how I agree it creates a theological - and now a civil and ecclesiastical mess!<br /><br />Best wishes and good prayers for the forum... We're all watching with anticipation!Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07474786207149076221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-2390399144393081462009-11-09T19:39:02.115-05:002009-11-09T19:39:02.115-05:00Tobias - I am glad to read about your efforts here...Tobias - I am glad to read about your efforts here and I only wish I could make it to Poughkeepsie for the panel. It is not really that far for me, but poor timing around here.<br /><br />The whole way that marriage is wrapped up in church in this country is so wrong. In fact, I would not have even understood that until an RC priest spelled it out for me years back. What a sad mess we are in and I am deeply saddened by the efforts of my denomination to derail and decry this.Franhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07181529277715646835noreply@blogger.com