Given pause

[avevale_intelligencer]

If, having read this post, you click on the link below and read the essay to which it links, I ask you as a courtesy not to comment there. I don't know this person and he doesn't know me, and I don't want him to get grief that I've earned. If you want to shout at someone, shout at me, all right?

The essay is a defence of the Catholic Church's position on homosexuality and marriage. It hasn't changed my mind on either of those issues, so there's no need to get on my case about that. I still think any two or more adult human beings who love each other should be able to express that love in whatever way they want, including marriage. I still think the Catholic Church is wrong.

What's given me pause--apart from the fact that this essay is incredibly well-written, closely-reasoned, and gives references--is that it makes it harder for me to believe that the Catholic Church's position is not supported by Christ's doctrine. The very first paragraph knocks the usual argument ("Jesus never condemned homosexuality") out of the court with a basic counter that even I should have been bright enough to see. It's only in the final paragraphs, where he suggests that liberals "deny that any difference exists at all" out of "disguised hate," that he goes completely off the beam. The rest of the article is uncomfortable reading for someone like me who, while not being a Christian, has always believed in a core of rightness under all the corruption and politicking. If this writer is correct, that belief is unfounded.

I don't know what to think now. I don't agree with the writer, obviously. I would very much like to know what my Christian friends think about this. (I think I can predict what my atheist friends will say, and I fancy the words "so," "you," "told," and "I" will feature strongly. I would like to take that as read, but I expect there's little chance of that.)

If you'd prefer not to get involved, that's fine.

http://fpb.livejournal.com/84324.html

EDIT: thank you very much to everyone who has commented so far. These comments have made the whole thing much clearer and put it into perspective for me. I'm glad I posted this, rather than just worrying about it on my own.

Comments

[keristor.livejournal.com]

"No place I know of is saying that any church has to allow gay marriage in their organisation"

Actually, some proposed legislation has implied that in its wording. In both the UK and US early forms of "equal rights" legislation has been worded in such a way that a church would not be permitted to refuse to perform a marriage, for instance, even if they disapproved of it (a Catholic church having to accept a divorced person being married, or gay marriage if that was legalised). In a similar way, laws have banned "men only" clubs, Scouting groups have been forced to have mixed troops. In my view I would happily allow groups to exclude whoever they wish, on the proviso that those excluded are permitted to form their own groups of the same nature (so if the Scouts don't allow girls you set up the Girl Guides -- oh wait, that was the case).

I can see such legislation putting people in a difficult situation, where they either have to discard their principles or break the law. Imagine if a law decided that women being denied the priesthood was discrimination, what would a number of churches do? They'd fight back because it's part of their core beliefs and that law would be a denial of freedom of religion. (Note that there's nothing stopping people from making a breakaway version of the church with different ideas -- it's how the Church of England started, after all, and many others including non-Christian ones.)

The same with things like gay marriage. It's hateful because it often looks as though people who believe that it's wrong would be forced to accept it, not just for other people but in their own communities (a proposed UK version would have forced mainstream churches to perform gay marriages; I'm not sure that it got to actual proposed law but certainly some groups were talking about it and it seemed a possibility).

So yes, as well as the subset of any population who are xenophobic, hating anything of "the other", there are some genuine reasons why people will think some things are wrong, and if they feel attacked they'll defend them. Ofen they'll go over the top in a "pre-emptive defense" (which looks rather like an attack), but there's also a possibility that some of it may be a response to something most of the rest of us can't see (the article in question here may have been in response to some criticism elsewhere).

[the-alchemist.livejournal.com]

In both the UK and US early forms of "equal rights" legislation has been worded in such a way that a church would not be permitted to refuse to perform a marriage, for instance, even if they disapproved of it (a Catholic church having to accept a divorced person being married, or gay marriage if that was legalised).

Evidence? UK equality law has always been stand-based, meaning that you're only protected from discrimination on certain grounds (e.g. race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, disability etc.), and 'being divorced' isn't one of them. And no UK "equal rights legislation" mentions same sex marriage at all.

The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regs 2007 and the Equality Act 2010 both have exceptions for religious groups, so you can't force churches to ordain gay priests, or mosques gay imams, though (quite rightly!), a church couldn't refuse to employ someone as a cleaner or accountant because they're gay.

No place I know of is saying that any church has to allow gay marriage in their organisation either.