Gay theologian thinks same-sex marriages are only the beginning!(Or, you ain't seen nothing, yet!)

AP ^ | January 30, 2004 | RICHARD N. OSTLING

[Grampa Dave]

Gay theologian thinks same-sex marriages are only the beginning!

Friday, January 30, 2004

By RICHARD N. OSTLING AP Religion Writer

Americans are starting to seriously ponder gay marriage, legalized by Massachusetts' highest court, and civil unions, enacted in Howard Dean's Vermont and several cities. The issue of same-sex couples could affect the 2004 elections and is part of the Episcopal Church's ongoing split.

But those moral innovations may be only the beginning. Why not legitimize threesomes and foursomes? What about bisexuals, who are attracted to both genders? And why not abolish marriage altogether?

Such eyebrow-raisers are posed by Marvin Ellison, the ethics professor at the United Church of Christ's Bangor (Maine) Theological Seminary, in "Same-Sex Marriage?: A Christian Ethical Analysis," published by the United Church's Pilgrim Press.

Ellison was married to a woman but didn't find that estate "particularly user-friendly" and now lives openly with a gay partner. He's a clergyman in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and was appointed to the panel that wrote its 1991 sex study, which was rejected as too liberal.

His rather superficial and repetitious book is perhaps significant in signaling a new strategy among liberal Protestants seeking to topple traditional sexual rules. Ellison no longer ponders the Bible passages that have been cited for centuries to forbid same-sex behavior and exalt heterosexual monogamy. He simply ignores them.

The headline news is Ellison's leap beyond the current nationwide discussion to pursue long-term implications.

He thinks "a lively debate is needed," for instance, on whether marriage should now be redefined to recognize "polyamorous" people, those involved with "multiple partners."

He wonders, "How exactly does the number of partners affect the moral quality of a relationship? ... Could it be that limiting intimate partnerships to only two people at a time is no guarantee of avoiding exploitation?"

Besides pondering marriage for bisexuals, he protests that the narrowly "bipolar" definition of marriage excludes "intersexuality, transgenderism, transsexuality and other sexualities."

Many of his fellow homosexuals doubt marriage is worth seeking or supporting, Ellison reports, because the institution has been so oppressive and so heterosexual. He, for one, has no intention of marrying his male partner if that becomes possible.

Ellison notes that some Christian liberals who advocate gay marriage hope to stem "gay male cruising and experimentation with multiple anonymous sex partners" and to foster monogamous commitment. He finds it "troubling" that ethicists would see "marriage is a necessary social control mechanism to tame men's sexuality."

In his view, strong defense of gay sexuality "requires critiquing the notion that the only moral (and legal) sex is marital sex," because old sexual categories and moral norms should be reconsidered.

In particular, marriage is based on monogamy, which is "limiting and does not reflect the different ways in which couples structure their partnerships."

Like other gay writers, Ellison wonders whether government should abolish marriage altogether rather than redefine it to include gays.

He is upset that "marriage has been privileged" by both the church and secular law, which denigrates such adult relationships as "domestic partnerships" and "long-term cohabitation."

Ellison suggests that civil law recognize that "the marital family is only one way to construct a family," arguing that "a variety of family models deserves the community's support" and that "non-married persons who bond together are quite successful at fulfilling family functions."

If lesbian and gay marriage is legalized, pressure for all types of couples to marry is likely to increase. He fears that will reinforce marriage as "the exclusive conduit for state subsidies and social respectability," stigmatizing homosexual and heterosexual couples who choose not to marry.

For now, he reports, gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders are "deeply divided" on whether marriage is desirable, and "few queer people are yet persuaded that marriage can be a school for love or justice."

[Grampa Dave]

The real agenda of the perverts and misfits goes beyond gay bishops, priests, preachers and marriages.

Their agenda is a total distruction of our beliefs and value systems.

[Grampa Dave]

FYI, and you may want to ping the FR E list.

[Grampa Dave]

FYI and your ping list.

[rj45mis]

God's judgment is upon us as a nation. The Roman Empire crumbled because the masses turned away from God's design for mankind and America is going down the same road. History has taught us little.

[JesseHousman]

Marvin Ellison, the ethics professor at the United Church of Christ's Bangor (Maine) Theological Seminary...

This pervert, slogging through the morass in search of youngsters to ruin, is an oxymoron afficionado's dream.

[Saturnalia]

Actually, I don't see much wrong with polygamy, provided the participants meet the standard for a normal marriage.
That said, would anyone care to point out anti-polygamy bible passages?

[verity]

How many wives can you fit in that van? ;~)

[Grampa Dave]

History didn't have the internet to get the real word out.

[Grampa Dave]

You used the right word, Pervert.

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks for the laugh of the day:

" I don't see much wrong with polygamy, provided the participants meet the standard for a normal marriage."

Thanks, you have made my day and helped this thread.

[Dutch Boy]

So the part in the bible that says "Le 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." is just a suggestion? The word abomination seems to be a little stronger than a meek please.

[Saturnalia]

Hell, worked out for any number of patriarchs.
Multiple wives seemed to work at some point, though working
out the difficulties in a modern relationship would be difficult, to say the least.
I'm not sure anyone today has the patience to deal with multiple husbands watching football
or multiple wives getting ready to go out.

[Avenger]

"Le 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

I have seen a few slightly different translations of this verse. What translation is this from? Can anyone here give any further evidence that this is indeed a good translation of the original? If it is then it doesn't seem to give much wiggle room for those who want to follow the Christian faith.

[ahadams2]

Thanks to Grampa Dave for the ping Ping.

[livius]

Yes - I suppose at least you have to give him credit for being right up front about this. Incredible, but certainly not unexpected (not by Freepers, at any rate).

[Grampa Dave]

At least he is honest now. I wonder if he was so honest when he was interviewing for his position as a pastor.

Unfortunately there are a lot of Freepers who weren't tuned into this reality until recently.

Have a good weekend and thanks for your insight.

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

Pinging some Catholics for something of interest.

[PoisedWoman]

Well, this certainly opens some fascinating possibilities. Marriage by Smorgasbord!

I thought I'd like to get married again.....was hoping to meet a nice man. But now, gee whiz, I can step right up to the buffet and point to a variety of really nice choices....a couple of Chinese guys for appetizers, three or four servings of meat-and-potatoes American guys for sequential monogamy entrees, a Danish "fruit" salad course, a solid German beefcake for dessert. And I can always go back for seconds. What glorious fun. NOT.

Marriage-- or non-marriage-- by smorgasbord really isn't going to make anyone happy.

[Avenger]

Pro-homosexual website that tries to justify homosexuality in spite of Biblical passages:

http://www.whosoever.org/bible/lev18.html

Somewhat interesting but twisted logic. Tries to justify homosexuality by saying that Christians are no longer bound by the (Judaic) Law, i.e. "since you can eat shrimp, I can engage in anal sex with another man." I don't think their account is completely correct since I believe even according to Jewish theology Gentiles are only required to follow a much looser set of rules in order to be in God's favor - and eating shrimp or wearing garments of made of mixed textiles are not proscribed as I recall.

[ahadams2]

Matthew 19:4-6
" 4And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5“and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6“So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

There Jesus is merely reiterating what was already the Law:
established in Gen 2:24.

One man and one woman only. And yes that does mean that the folks in the Old Testament with more than one wife were in violation of the Law.