What she said

"The humanity that unites us..." -- a big heartfelt THANK YOU for that, Rod. It is amazing how easy it is to put aside anger when you can see another flawed-but-capable-of-love" human being on the other end of that anger. 'Nuff said.

BPY
(best post(s) yet!)
Heifer

Well said by you both.

Rod sure didn't treat Maria Harrington like God's beloved creation, and today's reference to a "struggle" to love everyone is too vague a thing to make amends for Monday's rather nasty comments.

Diane put you up to that, Pauli? I swear, you people live to be offended. Let it go, guy.

For those who missed my "rather nasty" comments, here's the item I posted. I leave it to you to decide whether I was truly "rather nasty," and if what follows obviates my profession to "struggle" to learn to love others:

If you followed the "Faith as ideology" blog thread over the weekend, you might have seen the posts of one Maria Harrington. When one of her postings failed to appear, she wrote me privately to accuse me of silencing her, and revealing myself to be a horrible person, and so forth. When I checked the comments management section of the blog, I saw that for some inexplicable reason the software flagged her comment. As soon as I saw it, I hit "approve," and it posted. I wrote her back to tell her that I hadn't held up her comment, and that she owed me an apology for jumping the gun.

Here is her delicious response:

Oh, please. I'll bet the dog frequently ate your homework in school, too, lol. Or, worse, are you really claiming an "evil spirit" in "the software" is selectively disrupting the posting process, not YOU as YOU yourself announced you would, and then DID...DUH?

If so, Mister, not only is it YOU that is nutty buckets, but a whining, sniveling little coward of a man as well. You're pathetic and disgusting. It's YOU who owe all the good Christian people who post there an apology for orchestrating and manipulating them as puppets in order to further inflate your own creepy, bloated vanity, you empty, hollow little worm of a man.

Maria

Dang, is this chick on to me, or what? Oh well, all I can do is hope that she will mail me a photograph of herself so that I might behold the face of charity and, in turn, repent.

Diane did not "put [me] up to that."

I will take Rod's advice and "let it go". That's actually really, really good advice for anyone to take. Have a blessed weekend, everybody. Mazel tov.

But M_David, as I've gotten older I've had to come to terms with learning to love people close to me -- older people -- who hold racial opinions I reject as immoral. Right now I struggle to see the humanity of death-row inmates, of abusive priests, of Islamic terrorists and others I would sooner see die than look at. Don't you? Oughtn't you, as a Christian, try to do the same?

Somebody on this blog posted a quote not long ago from C.S. Lewis, explaining what it meant to "love thy neighbor." If memory serves, Lewis said that loving your neighbor doesn't mean approving of what he does, or believes in. It means, in part, understanding oneself: that if you think about it, you can be a pretty nasty piece of work yourself, but you would like to be treated with love by those around you. If you're honest, you don't refrain from judging yourself and your own actions, nor should you refuse to pass judgment on the rightness or wrongness of your neighbor's beliefs and actions. But in the end, you've got to remember that your neighbor is a human being.

This is hard. But this is necessary.

I don't see why the fact that I believe Andrew Sullivan is deeply wrong about an important moral issue (or two, or three) should preclude me from wishing him happiness in this instance. Dan Savage thought, and probably still thinks, that I'm a right-wing Christian nut who is a menace to society. But he had it in his heart to get in touch with me and offer me his wishes for my safety and well-being. I appreciated the grace. I hope I too can offer that grace to others. I hope that I have only opponents, never enemies.

Larry Parker: Is Kia Vaughn one of "God's beloved creatures" and one of your "sisters"?

Yeah, and if my sister filed a defamation lawsuit under those circumstances, I'd say, "Ruthie, I love you, but you're a greedhead who needs to stand down."

Since when does loving somebody mean we have to refrain from criticizing them? I'm not going to stop criticizing Andrew Sullivan when I think he's wrong, and I'm not going to suddenly approve of everything he does or believes in. I just thought it a decent thing to wish him well.

Great post, Rod, and just as classy as K-Lo's :) It's my prayer that more Christians would have this kind of attitude. Well done.

James, you know where I stand on gay marriage. Do I have to hope it rains on his wedding reception, and the beagles poop in the punch, to be faithful to my beliefs?

I liked Rod's original post a lot. I think it's an interesting example of how actually knowing a gay person changes attitudes.

I do have a few thoughts about your question, James. One of my sisters (we were raised Catholic) converted to Buddhism and got married in a Buddhist ceremony. Our father refused to attend. Although he did not object when I went, and took our mother with me. My other sister got married in a non-denominational Protestant ceremony that was held at our father's house. He didn't overtly object to that, but he has since taken the opportunity to put down her religion at every opportunity and to express resentment and hostility toward her dedicated involvement in her Protestant Christian faith. I can't see that any of this has improved his relationship with his daughters, nor has it motivated them in the very slightest to return to the Catholic church. If anything, they've become even more determined to have nothing to do with Catholicism in any way.

I suppose you might say that non-Catholic marriages are not actually evil, just illicit or something. Whereas homosexuality is "gravely disordered," which I think is the new code word for what used to be called "mortal sin." But in the old days, marrying outside the church was a mortal sin, too. And so was attending a non-Catholic worship service. I certainly find this confusing.

To try to understand the dilemma of a Catholic who still believes homosexuality is actually "evil" rather than just a kind of black mark on your spiritual record, I tried to think of circumstances in which I would not attend a loved one's wedding. I guess if a friend decided to marry a Nazi in some kind of white supremacist ceremony, I would not attend. I would not want to be seen as condoning such behavior in any way, because I consider those movements to be evil. Why? Because they harm actual human beings who can feel pain and die, not because they offend a spiritual being who is omnipotent and eternal.

That's the bottom line for me in terms of evil--it must do severe damage to living beings, particularly humans. If it is merely an offense against church discipline, or a transgression against a theological assertion, then it may be a mistake or bad idea, but it isn't evil. In such a case, I'd put my relationship with the living person ahead of my disapproval of their behavior, and attend the wedding. You'd have to decide for yourself which kind of transgression gay marriage is in your book.

Keep in mind, however, that when you tell a person that uniting with the love of their life is a deed so evil and ungodly that you cannot even be present with mental reservations, that person will never look upon your friendship in the same light. You are committing a serious affront that will really hurt them. You can't expect them to understand and love you as much as ever, when you've just refused that understanding to them. You've just told them, in effect, that you're willing to lose your relationship with them for the sake of making a statement about your own beliefs. Make sure it's worth it to you.

I dunno. First of all, I'm not even sure what "gay marriage" means anyway. Evidently for many gays, it does not even mean fidelity. (The occasional foray to the bathhouse for anonymous sex is OK as long as you're home in time for dinner.)

And Sullivan as a writer became tedious years ago. He falls into these extended rants (e.g., "Christianist") that get really old really quick. Thank God his little "Eagles" shtick in which he designated himself and others like him something special fell off the table in a hurry.

So do I hope Andrew has a happy life? Sure, why not? But like the stupid & repulsive Derbyshire, he'll have to do it without me reading him because he just ain't interesting.

If you have a dear friend who invites you to a gay wedding, you go and you are gracious and you don't debate your faith/politics over champagne. Because you can guarantee that the people who invited you to the wedding have some serious concerns about how you live your life, but they would likely be gracious and polite if asked to celebrate those things they object to.

That makes sense to me.

SMCT, what if the wedding is non-religious? I can understand not participating in a sacrement, but what if the wedding isn't occurring as part of the sacrament? Surely you realize there is a whole sphere of marriages that have nothing to do with religious sacraments or the blessing of the church. Are they also off limits? If that's the case, then wouldn't you as a Catholic have to avoid any non-Catholic wedding because it violates the idea of the Catholic marriage sacrement?

SteveM, Daniel, you know that the disturbed and hysterical commentary above -- which I've deleted -- can only come from one source. I'm on troll patrol, so her cries for help have been deleted. Whee!

SteveM, you say: "I dunno. First of all, I'm not even sure what "gay marriage" means anyway. Evidently for many gays, it does not even mean fidelity. (The occasional foray to the bathhouse for anonymous sex is OK as long as you're home in time for dinner.)"

I'm not sure what straight marriage means. Evidently for many straight people, it does not even mean fidelity. (The occasional foray to a massage parlor, prostitute or porn shop for anonymous sex is OK as long as you're home in time for dinner.)

Believe it or not, there are actually many gay people who don't have open relationships, who aren't running off for anonymous sex every chance they get.

Are you seriously asking what a gay person thinks marriage is? or were you just looking for a chance to play the "promiscuity" card? If the former, I will gladly find you some information. If the latter, I guess you were successful in playing the card, but do you ever worry about the implications of speaking in ignorance and the possible injustice you commit?

"About promiscuity, I don't play any cards Jim. But research has shown that it is not atypical for a gay man to have had hundreds of sexual encounters with different men. I see those guys trolling around the parks here in DC all the time. "

Some Republican family values convention in town?

Kim M

About promiscuity, I don't play any cards Jim. But research has shown that it is not atypical for a gay man to have had hundreds of sexual encounters with different men. I see those guys trolling around the parks here in DC all the time. Straight guys who are not pathological don't have those numbers of encounters with anonymous women. Even ones who could afford to pay for hundreds of prostitutes.

I have read some statistics about male homosexual promiscuity and I often wonder if they are really true.

Can people really engage in sexual activity as if it were no different from a handshake? How do we know that these surveys of heterosexuals and homosexuals are really accurate? I just ask the question, since we are drawing conclusions from those surveys and statistics.

And I should modify that last statement: "I find it very difficult to be severe .... if the behavior is not going to do harm to unconsenting 3rd parties". To make that clearer with a non-sexual example: I have many friends and acquaintances who have different values about money and consumption than I do, but while this colors how I may look at the friendship, it does not stop me from loving and admiring the person for many other good qualities. As opposed to someone endangering the lives of others by risky sexual behavior, driving drunk, etc. There I feel I have a duty to take action.

And I did not answer your question: "And what constitutes a "marriage" when monogamy is not normative between the partners?" For me, monagamy is part of being married. So is a lifelong vow to love, honor, and cherish, in sickness and health. A promise to not leave when the going gets tough but to get working to fix whatever is wrong in the marriage. A promise to extend myself unselfishly for my partner's good and sacrifice my own desires and dreams for the good of our marriage. To adopt my partner's family as my own and give them the same love, care and consideration I would give my own. Further, for me marriage is supporting each other in our "ministry" (where I use the word "ministry" very loosely to mean those things in our way of being that bring us most alive and pouring out God's love). For some it might be in raising a family, for others in the arts, social services or political action, yet for others simply in creating welcoming retreats that bring people together in friendship.

Z-

Your inanity is breathtaking. Lesbians are not gay men. Gay men in general are more promiscuous than straight men. Your example of the married men (gay) men who cruise parks is ironically confirming. Now don’t tell me they are bisexual. Once they take their marital vows, nope, not any more. That’s it, they are married. After those guys make that sacred promise to a woman and break it in a dirty restroom, they are just cretinous, lying, slobs. But you want to recast them as heroes for having the courage to assert their innate gayness in a dank restroom stall don’t you Z? And ignore the human wreckage created by the self indulgence.

And I explicitly stated the normative “shared understanding” among heterosexual couples of their marital intent. Which is fidelity. If one partner is lying going in, well then he or she is just as much as much a cretinous, self indulgent slob as the gay slobs who ruin good peoples’ lives by pretending to be something that they are not. But oh I forgot, gays can't be self indulgent slobs. They can only be heroes who happen to be persecuted and misunderstood.

So back to this argument by many gay men for "Open" marriage as a "valid" alternative marital relationship. That OK with you Z? I mean really, you and Jim have any problems with that?

Jim,

I am saying that the gay community in general looks at marital monogamy as being optional. That is a standard that radically redefines the historic context of marriage. Again, if two gay men get married with the shared understanding that each would have occasional sex outside of the relationship, would that be an acceptable relaxation of traditional vows from your point of view? You have chosen monogamy, but is a marital vow illegitimate for those who bilaterally don’t? That’s the rub, not your personal situation. This is the same phenomenon that occurred in the Catholic priesthood by the way when a critical mass of sexually active gay clergy and their celibate “fellow travelers” who looked the other way, took hold of dioceses and seminaries.

With that being said, I let God down in a lot of ways. But not urging gays to monogamy is not one of them. It's not my job. I happen to think that government should get out of the marriage business all together because of the excessive economic entanglements that have grown over time. Let people marry anyone or anything they want in whatever kinds of private ceremonies they want to conjure up. Just don’t ask me to pay either directly or indirectly for the arrangement. If people want to arrange private “civil union” contracts that specify bilateral rights and responsibilities, that’s fine. If a company wants to provide employee benefits, let them provide vouchers that the employee can use to buy services for anyone he or she chooses.

Now I accept gays on almost every term. They have the same rights (and obligations) as everybody else. Generally, what do I care what they do? But if they engage in knowingly reckless sexual behavior that means we collectively have to pay $20K per year (like for Andrew) for medication to keep them alive when they get infected, and then they accuse society of intolerance and homophobia when their moral incongruities are pointed out, well that bugs. I don’t mind paying for the medical consequences of human weakness. Nobody lives pristinely. It’s the insulated sense of morally detached entitlement that the gay community projects that rubs me the wrong way.

And if I where an adoption agency official and I had to chose between two similarly situated couples to place a child. And one couple was gay and the other was straight, would I chose the husband and wife? Sure. So there. Have at it about that until Rod scrolls this post to oblivion.

James Kabala,

"I wonder if Rod isn't going too far by wishing him an enjoyable reception. When do we cross from "Hate the sin, love the sinner" to "Love the sinner, wink at the sin?" I'm not condemning Rod here, but this is an important question for Christians as we strive to be "in the world, but not of of it." And really, this applies to second marriages after divorce as much as to gay marriages. Does anyone have any thoughts?"

Of course we have some thoughts on it James. As far as 'crossing the line' gay people who are getting married surely don't think of their love and committment as "sin". When you think Rod may be going to far merely by wishing them an enjoyable reception, Rod is just being HUMAN. Care to try it yourself?

SteveM,

"First of all, I'm not even sure what "gay marriage" means anyway. Evidently for many gays, it does not even mean fidelity. (The occasional foray to the bathhouse for anonymous sex is OK as long as you're home in time for dinner.)"

You do know that the exact same thing can be said for many, many heterosexuals? I'm not even sure what "str8 marriage" means, anyway.

SteveM,

"If one partner is lying going in, well then he or she is just as much as much a cretinous, self indulgent slob as the gay slobs who ruin good peoples’ lives by pretending to be something that they are not."

How, exactly, is the gay person (your "cretinous, self indulgent slob" remarks are surely against the Rules of conduct, no Rod?) pretending to be something that they are not???

You don't sound like a very nice person.

"I am saying that the gay community in general looks at marital monogamy as being optional."

And you get this "information" where?

"That is a standard that radically redefines the historic context of marriage."

Sorta like Biblical polygamy, yes? Your take on the "historic context of marriage" is lacking - a lot!

"Again, if two gay men get married with the shared understanding that each would have occasional sex outside of the relationship, would that be an acceptable relaxation of traditional vows from your point of view?"

Our view of it counts for nothing. It really is none of "our" business, anymore than the heterosexual couple who get married with the shared understanding that each would have occasional sex outside of the relationship.

"You have chosen monogamy, but is a marital vow illegitimate for those who bilaterally don’t [choose monogamy]?"

Not for those that make the vows. What businesss is it of yours?

"With that being said, I let God down in a lot of ways. But not urging gays to monogamy is not one of them. It's not my job."

No. Your "job" apparently, is to spout moronic stereotypes that have nothing to do with our reality.

"I happen to think that government should get out of the marriage business all together because of the excessive economic entanglements that have grown over time. Let people marry anyone or anything they want in whatever kinds of private ceremonies they want to conjure up. Just don’t ask me to pay either directly or indirectly for the arrangement."

But gay people pay taxes too, so therefore WE pay for your 'arrangements".

"If people want to arrange private “civil union” contracts that specify bilateral rights and responsibilities, that’s fine."

Now if only it were "fine" with the government too.

"Now I accept gays on almost every term."

Guffaw! Re-read most of your posts, Steve, You emphatically do NOT. Au contraire, you willingly bear false witness about us.

"They have the same rights (and obligations) as everybody else."

We can only HOPE and wish so. Unfortunately, this too is a falsehood.

"Generally, what do I care what they do?"

Not according to your posts about our rampant infidelity, our incapability of taking marriage vows seriously.

"But if they engage in knowingly reckless sexual behavior..."

Not that ANY heterosexuals ever indulge in the same, eh?

"they accuse society of intolerance and homophobia when their moral incongruities are pointed out, well that bugs."

We accuse people of intolerance and homophobia when they spread lies about us, when they deny us equal treatment before the law. It "bugs" equally when YOUR moral incongruities are pointed out too, I'd bet.

"I don’t mind paying for the medical consequences of human weakness."

This is a direct contradiction to your above statement: "they engage in knowingly reckless sexual behavior that means we collectively have to pay $20K per year (like for Andrew) for medication to keep them alive when they get infected". Seems like you DO mind, Steve.

"Nobody lives pristinely."

It's just that gay people should be castigated for it, eh?