Grace & Peace!
Right there, finally… Yes exactly, the Greeks rejected so called “same sex marraige”, and they rejected it for the same reason the rest of everyone else who understands natural law rejects it. It’s a violation of the natural order, which should not ever occur. That’s all you needed to write, right there
Your conclusion is inaccurate. Based on what I wrote, this is a more accurate conclusion: Insofar as the Greeks rejected same sex marriage, they did so not because sex between men was viewed as wrong, but because a sexual relationship between two men was valuable in its own right and did not need to be compared with a sexual relationship between a man and woman in order to have value (which value, moreover, was often seen as greater than a sexual relationship with a woman, who were generally considered inferior to men and closer to animals). If you believe that this fits well into your understanding of natural law, then…
- You’re contradicting your self, above you admitted the Greeks abohored so called “same sex marriage”, but now you’re trying to backpedal. You can’t do that, it’s one or the other, you were correct the first time.
If you follow my reasoning, you’ll discover that I was not contradicting myself at all–I have remained consistent with the restatement of my position above. Nor did I say that the Greeks abhorred same sex marriage (as it’s not something they ever had to deal with, to my knowledge). Again, I restated my position above. It’s consistent with what we know of Greek culture and sexuality and is not reflective of your tendency to revise history to include Medieval scholastic thought at every point in the historical record. I understand that you may like scholasticism very much. But I fear that your affection for it has rendered it difficult for you to see anything without it, as evidenced by your difficulties with the rest of my argument. It has become a crutch, making conversation and broad thinking difficult.
- There is some bizzar notion that Christians are trying to claim “exclusive ownership” of marraige. Also, I’ve heard the claim made many times that there is no historical basis to the idea that marriage is exclusive to one man, and one woman. This comes out of a complete ignorance of history, complete and total. I’m correcting, preemptivly anyone who tries making this argument. Marriage has always been between man and woman, by the time of the Greeks marriage was settled, by and large as being between one man and one woman.
You’re saying a few different things here:
1–History shows that marriage has always been between one man and one woman. This is demonstrably false.
2–History shows that marriage has always been between men and women. This is true. But not necessarily for the reasons you claim for it.
3–The Christian understanding of marriage that we have now is the understanding of marriage held by the ancients, at least since the time of the ancient Greeks. This, too, is demonstrably false. What marriage meant to the ancients is not what it means to us.
Rejecting same sex marriage has nothing to do with woman in the workforce, and women in the workforce has nothing to do with so called “same sex marriage”.
Same sex marriage has everything to do with crossing or removing the cultural boundaries between men and women. The first assault on these boundaries was women’s suffrage beginning in the late 19th century. The next great assault was the entrance of women into the workforce during and after WWII. These movements gave rise, in part, to the development of feminism, women’s rights, etc. The homosexual movement rode on the coat-tails of the women’s rights movement due, in part, to a similarity at the core of the two movements–they were both about overturning or challenging tradtionally held cultural notions of what it means to be a man or a woman.
Same sex marriage stems from a lack of a sacramental view of sexuality.
This is an effect, not a cause. The loss of a sacramental view of sexuality didn’t just appear–it has its roots in a cultural shift that goes much deeper.
this has nothing to do with the equality of men and women, stop trying to confuse the issue.
It has
everything to do with the equality of men and women! It has *everything *to do with how we conceive of the cultural constructs of masculine and feminine. This is the root of the whole issue.
Wrong, it’s about the violation of natural law.
It’s about what we mean when we say “man” and what we mean when we say “woman”–with how we conceive of the facts of biology in relation to the exigencies and movements of a particular culture in a particular time and place.
It is often a hallmark of conservative thought that appeals are consistently made to an imagined and idealized past. I fear that you have fallen prey to such a construction, an ideal world of the past in which natural law, as you conceive of it, was followed rigidly, and all things were pleasant and happy. Such a world has not existed. It is a dream, and it’s preventing you from seeing the lay of the land
as it is clearly.
To solve this problem, we need to stop being so hysterical about symptoms and so romantically attached to a past that never existed and get slightly more focused on addressing
causes in a way that does not violate but enhances human dignity. Dealing with symptoms can only do so much–and, in the end, it’s a losing battle. Dealing with root causes lets us confront reality as it is and opens up the possibility to begin a massive cultural shift which eliminates those symptoms.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!
