Posted on 06/25/2003 6:37:14 PM PDT by Coleus
A shame really. This country was beautifully conceived, grew mightily to adulthood, accomplished wonderous things in maturity (space flight, defeat of totalitarianism, technological wonders, etc...) and is growing sick and twisted in it's old age. I have this really bad feeling that Dubya will be the last great POTUS (unless by some miracle Condi, Jeb or Ridge can defeat Hillary) and the final descent will begin.
As many of you know, Patrick Madrid has now joined Free Republic. He also hosts his own blog on which several articles have been posted on this topic. The author of both is Dwight Longenecker. Rather than point you to his blog, it would be much easier to copy them here in their entirety. (Hopefully, Mr. Madrid will be sympathetic, having spoken up against such a law),
Where we're headed
Dwight Longenecker
I was fascinated by the detail of one comment from a Canadian that folks North of the Border have put a new item on the liberal agenda: they want to recognise polygamy between people of various sexual inclinations.
Here's how the argument will go: Let's imagine things just ten or twenty years down the line.
By now homosexual 'marriage' is accepted as a mainstream alternative. But what about those people who live in a threesome? Why shouldn't they get 'married'? The permutations are endless: a homosexual man with another man and his wife, a lesbian with her girlfriend and her girlfriend's husband, a man who simply wants two or three or however many wives, a woman who wants to have two or three or more husbands. A man who's had a sex change living with another man and his wife....
When you think about it, there is even less Biblical opposition to polygamy than to homosexuality. In fact, as far as I know there is no Biblical condemnation of polygamy. In fact, you could say there is downright support for polygamy--the patriarchs were polygamous. Christians in Africa might support it as it is a part of their recent traditions. The Mormons would support it.
Liberal Christians would say, 'Isn't this a better alternative to divorce?' Instead of Sally divorcing John and marrying Harry she could just marry Harry too. That way the children would have not just one father but two! Wouldn't that be great! What a great big, loving family! Utilitarian arguments for polygamy are endless. By marrying extra wives or husbands you cut divorce costs, you lower your overheads, you can combine incomes and have a better standard of living, more hands to help with the children and housework, a renewal of the extended family... blah blah blah...
Think of the benefit for relationships. If George is married to Mildred, but admits that he sometimes has homosexual inclinations he doesn't need to sneak around and be hypocritial and deceitful. He doesn't need to 'repress' his sexuality. He can just marry his boyfriend and that way they can all be 'fulfilled.'
Liberal Theologians will call this 'triune marriage'. They will spin theories about how this reflects the Holy Trinity, and how it is a fuller, richer and more mature understanding of Christian marriage. Sexologists will explain how a marriage with homosexuality as an integral part will enhance and fulfill the 'maleness' and 'femaleness' in all the partners.
You know, without any authority and with a bit of imagination and you can make elephants fly.
I will post his story on the Anglican homosexual issue, separately.
The Logic of Anglicanism
Many ordinary Christians are scratching their heads at the recent fuss within the Anglican Church. How on earth did they get to that point? How could seemingly prayerful, intelligent and decent bishops wind up supporting open homosexuality?
The answer is very revealing for Catholics. One part of the answer is that this is simply political correctness of our secular society infecting the church. The real answer is more interesting.
Rowan Williams--the new Archbishop of Canterbury--wrote about the homosexuality issue in an essay called 'The Body's Grace.' He concludes with these words,
In a church that accepts the legitimacy of contraception, the absolute condemnation of same-sex relations of intimacy must rely either on an abstract fundamentalist deployment of a number of very ambiguous biblical texts, or on a problematic and nonscriptural theory about natural complementarity, applied narrowly and crudely to physical differentiation without regard to psychological structures.
In other words, accept contraception and you cannot logically ban homosexuality. If sex is for recreation not procreation, then the homosexually inclined person should be able to enjoy sexual activity too.
Williams is no slouch theologically. He's followed his own logic home. Paradoxically, he has proved Paul VI's point and shown Humanae Vitae to be a prophetically wise encyclical.
If only more of our Catholic theologians were as bright as Rowan Williams. He has understood the effects of accepting contraception quite clearly. He's drawn a disastrously wrong conclusion of course, but he's done so honestly and logically from his own starting point.
Mr. Longenecker requests your prayers for him tomorrow.
"Please remember a prayer for me tomorrow afternoon (British time) as I have been invited to appear on a BBC World Service programme to discuss the Anglican homosexual issue from a Catholic point of view. Pray that I may speak with clarity, charity and a sense of humour.
The programme will be broadcast over the weekend. I'll post details here later on how to tune in."
This issue will be in the NY Legislature very soon, if it isn't already there. There was too much bickering over this year's outrageous budget that some legislation had to sit.
It might be good for ALL readers to copy and paste the text of your letter, in anticipation of their domino's position in the lineup.
All of these [homosexual] types . . . . are of course human beings, who, like the rest of us, must play the best game they can with the cards Nature has dealt them. No decent person would wish to inflict on them any more unahpppiness than their mismatched bodies and psyches have already burdened them with. at the same time, there is circumstantial evidence that complete acceptance and equality for all sexual orientations may have antisocial consequences, so that the obloquy aimed at sexual variance by every society prior to our own may have had some stronger foundations than mere blind prejudice. Male homosexuality, inparticular, seems to possess some quality of being intrinsically subversive when let loose in long-established institutions, especially male-dominated ones. The courtsof at least two English kings offer support to this thesis, as does the postwar Brisish Secret Service, and more recently the Roman Catholic priesthood. I should like to see some adverturous sociologist research these outward aspects with as m uch diligence and humanity as Michael Bailey has applied to his study of the inward ones.
Stanley Kurtz, in an article on NRO in May 2002, develops the theme of the connections between gay marriage and the gay priesthood. I don't know if was ever posted on FR, but it's still timely for those interested in the subject. Gay Priests and Gay Marriage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.