gay marriage discussion
An great thing has happened: I learned somthing!
Check out this discussion with one ummm… reader about gay marriage and the Catholic Church. I’ve never actually had this discussion in a thoughtful way outside of the context of a class (Justice). Maybe that’s because I’m too annoyingly opinionated so people who I disagree with have avoided the debate, maybe because, as the reader notes, the Church is demonized in this conversation, maybe because I don’t hang out with many people who would make the argument against gay marriage. Whatever the reason, it was great that it happened.
I highly recommend checking out the conversation, especially for those of you who agree with my opinion. I think what you may find is that one of the primary problems with this debate is that we’re talking past each other.
With that in mind, I have this thought. Reader, you point out that the Church believes that:
[S]ex always should have a dual purpose: as an act of love and as an act of procreation. It is an act that produces life, and since this is its main biological purpose this should not be separated from its emotional aspect. And if one of the two are not present, than abstinence is the best choice.
While I disagree, I understand the point. The obvious question than, is whether that rule should apply to women who are infertile, women who are too old to procreate, etc. There are countless types of relationships in which sex cannot lead procreation, but is otherwise “ok” with the Church (i.e. happening between a married straight couple without contraception). Would the Church say that sex should not happen in these cases?
Another thought: the Church seems to be making a utilitarian argument about what is best for society. Is this because God is a utilitarian, or because he has simply established a relationship as “natural” that IS best for society. Once you differentiate this, I think you have to address the question of, if we are God’s creations, why he would put people on earth who have homosexual identities if they do not also fulfill this social utility.
In any event, this is good. I can now actually point to specific diversions of belief that lead me in a completely different direction than the Church and those who disagree with gay marriage. Hopefully I’m not the only person who finds this interesting.
JOIN IN THE DISCUSSION. HIT COMMENT!
Comments
A couple of quick thoughts:
While it may have some sort of contemporary utility to deconstruct current religious arguments against homosexuality, I think it is misleading to take these arguments at face value. In the end, it comes down to “God says it must be this way, therefore it must be this way.” To the extent that homophobes simply believe in the “Word of God” to the same extent that I believe in the Laws of Physics, there’s no arguing with them.
But to the extent where people’s believes are my pliable, I think the stronger deconstructionist argument goes to a more historical examination of the Catholic Church and its attitudes towards sexuality. It is my suspecion that a lot of these arguments for “sexuality only for procreation” are slapped onto a history of social control of women, which is therefore a control over reproduction, which is therefore a may of controlling the future. This, of course, also connects to the concern regarding the fall of Rome, the advent of the Dark Ages, and the beginnings of puritanism.
These thoughts now seem a little muddled, but really the point I wanted to make is that the reasons homophobia, birth control, and religious sexism are all tied together and link back to a the historical hangover of sexual puritanism and power.
Post a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.