stephen clark: Marriage terminology

Thursday, 22 June 2006

Marriage terminology

About the previous post a respondent writes:

Pedant said...: To whom is it important to use the word "marriage" with respect to a particular commitment between two "gay" people - and why is it so?
I think this is a good question we are not just confused about the application of the term "marriage" to same sex couples, but also about the non-application of the term 'marriage' to thousands of relationships which seem to be remarkably marriage-like. We call these euphemistically "defacto" relationships and increasingly the law affords to these relationships the same rights as people who have gone through a ceremony and got a piece of paper.
I actually think this is much more sinister and even deceitful. We systematically regularise situations which seem set to avoid certain responsibilities afforded with marriage, whilst wanting the benefits.
It would seem to me that this has come about because the regulation of marriage is a mess, and that what ever else we understand about "marriage" it is not the same widely shared understanding as it was 50 and 100 years ago.
With regard to our own marriage, Sue and I have a fairly conservative understanding about what it is..(this is something of what I was trying to convey to the couple I referred to in my previous post). We see each other as the person God has given us to enable us to become the person God wants us to be. (What the poor woman did to deserve me I don't know). This has been at times wonderful and fulfilling, at other times it has been tortuous. It has always been right.
With regard to same-sex couples, it is quite clear that not all of them want to be married...just as that is quite clear about opposite-sex couples, a lot of them don't want to get married.
Some same-sex couples do want to marry! Not a lot I think but that might change.
One of my points is that we should be trying to encourage people to live in committed intimate relationships rather than uncommitted ones ("intimate" here does not only include sex but also "relationship"). This is for me, as a Christian, an important dimension of learning what it means to live a life of love. As a human being. irrespective of my particular beliefs, I think that commitment rather than uncommitment in relationships is best for society.
On one level it doesn't matter whether the word "marriage" is used for committed same sex relationships or not. Though for the life of me I can't see why two people of the same sex can't commit themselves to have and to hold, to love and to cherish etc. etc and to be faithful for the whole of their lives.
Some will have difficulty with the notion that such couples provide a safe, good and growing place for the nurture and care of children. At the very least the committed relationship is better than the uncommitted.
At this point I have to blandly use the "quack like a duck" argument, though I don't really care (other than from the point of view of social justice and equal rights...a pretty big "iff") if same sex relationships are called by some other name. But why should they be?
I don't think this contravenes Christian doctrine. I don't think this is against the Bible, which is remarkably silent on definitions. It is I think in accordance with the idea that we are invited as our understandings change and our world develops to be challenged to hear how God speaks to us afresh.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...: How about using the bible definition? Homosexual relationships are not in accordance with God's will, homosexuality is a sin. People with same sex attraction are in the same boat as everyone else in this fallen world, struggling with sin. His Holy Spirit can and does help us, if we accept Jesus as our saviour & commit our lives to Him, seeking to live to bring Him glory. This is the reason why we are here, isn't it?; 11:32 am
Stephan Clark said...: I don't essentially disagree with the analysis that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God".
But I always find it puzzling that so much emphasis is placed by some people on certain sins when the scriptural witness is thin.
I don't hear, for example, the moralists condemning "defacto" relationships with anything like the vigour they throw at same sex relationships.
I also don't believe that it is good exegesis to say that the scripture condemns committed same-sex relationships. As I read the scripture it is remarkably silent about such relationships.
I do hear our Lord saying very clearly to me and you...let the one who is without sin cast the first stone.
As I hear that I am counselled to be very cautious about my own judgmentalism. Others obviously are not so.; 11:49 am
Anonymous said...: Pleased to hear that you don't disagree with the scriptures in regards to "all have sinned...". Scripture clearly condemns homosex as sin. Who are "the moralists" you mention? No-one can cast the first stone for obvious reasons, however as Christians we need to be challenging and rebuking each other if need be, this is not being judgemental in the sense in which you apply it.; 6:54 pm
Anonymous said...: O what a tangled web. What should be done with judgemental bloggers?; 11:37 am
Stephan Clark said...: Boggabri, my previous entries make it plain that the "moralists" are those who selectively focus on homosexuality as if it is the sin to end all sins. I frankly am at a loss to understand why there appears to be an obsession with homosexuality.
We have quite different understandings about a range of things in modern times than the writers of the scriptures had. They for example assumed that slavery was a fact of life, they assumed the subordination of women...these perceptions have changed. And there are simply some areas where the scriptures do not make definitive pronouncements.
The word "homosex" for example which you use is never used in the scriptures ( it's not a word as far as I know). Contraception, too, is not discussed in the Bible yet it is contraceptive reliability (since the late 60s) which would seem to affect contemporary sexual morality more than anything else. Would everyone engage in premarital sex if pregnancy were still a likely outcome?
So we interpret almost everything we deduce from the Bible. You say that passing judgment on others is "not judgmentalism". I just don't get that. Judgmentalism is so often about the powerful picking on the vulnerable and outcast. The majority picking on the minority. It seems to me that is what Jesus was condemning.; 5:19 pm
Anonymous said...: It seems that much attaches to the meaning you or I (or that other person} selectively attaches to a particular word. What does heresy mean in your book?; 1:01 pm
Stephan Clark said...: Justin (AJB) I think you have enough thoughts about the word heresy for all of us.; 5:38 pm
Gay Erasmus said...: Thanks, Stephen, for this post.

If we are all sinners, then why focus on one sin alone? And why must homosexuality in and of itself be considered a sin? Homosexuals may be sinners, but not because of their involuntary attraction to people of the same sex, nor indeed because of their decision to act on that attraction.

If we take the time to read the Bible in its many translations, it becomes less and less clear that the kinds of behaviours that Paul condemns reflect the loving relationships that same-sex couples enjoy and seek to formalize today.; 9:01 am
Anonymous said...: Gay Erasmus comes across as one able express him or her self intelligently without 'ducking and weaving'. I would like, with Stephen's permission, to put a question to GE. How would you, GE, respond to a suggestion that a relationship between two people of the same biological sex comparable in respect of integrity with that which SHOULD obtain in a heterosexial marriage, be recognised by a well accepted word OTHER THAN 'MARRIAGE'? The answer could, in my simplistic opinion, offer in some small way a clue as to how we might go about trying to reduce irrelevant controversy stirred up by this complex question.; 1:48 pm
Gay Erasmus said...: Hi justin passing. Hmm, my short answer is as follows: not all homosexual couples who seek formal recognition of their relationships want a marriage per se. Nor do they all want a civil union partnership.

Like committed heterosexual relationships, committed homosexual relationships don't conform to any one relationship model. So to use a word other than marriage to describe all same-sex relationships would seem to me unfairly limiting.

Personally, I want a marriage. And that's in large part because I'm Christian, and therefore believe that marriage is a sacrament. I believe that marriage is an undertaking before God. I want to be able to cherish the beauty and sanctity of married life. Marriage, for me, is very much a reconciliation of my faith with my capacity to love and be loved by a special other. My special other would happen to a man.

(Thanks to Stephen for tolerating this long-winded comment!); 11:41 pm
Stephan Clark said...: Thanks GE for that answer weith which I largely concur. There is of course also an issue about dealing with prejudice. This was brought home in the 60 mins report on Sunday night. I ask again what it is about gender that might mean that two people cannot commit themselves to each other for life because they are of the same gender.
The newly elected Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal (Anglican) Church in the US, Katherine Jefferts-Schori is on the record as saying that she believes that gay people are a gift to the world to show us how people of the same sex might love each other.
I like that positive spin.; 11:54 am
mushroom said...: Its refreshing to see a christian who has an open and non condemning mind about homosexuality.

However, why shouldnt de-factos be afforded similar rights to a married couple? I am non religious and dont intend on getting married ever. However, I am still committed to my partner. A 'piece of paper' as you put it will not change my committment or respect for her.; 3:43 pm
Stephan Clark said...: Mushroom.
I have a very high view of marriage based on my own experienceit does seem to me that being married changed me and made me a greater person. A key thing about being married is commitment to lifelong partnership. It is scary stuff and (in my opinion) a powerful motivator. It opens us up as people.
As a person who has married people from time to time and had something to do with people in a range of defacto relationships I know that some people in defacto relationships have quality. A lot don't, and it saddens me if people settle for second best.
In the end we all have to make our own decisions.
me, I want to encourage people to be honest and brave and vulnerable. It will mean different things for different people.; 5:26 pm
Anonymous said...: How do you go about encouraging people to be honest, brave and vunerable?; 2:17 pm
Stephan Clark said...: I suppose Suppressed that as a Christian I look to Jesus and see that he is honest, brave and vulnerable. This is the way he lives his life and I would like to live my life with that sort of quality.
More than that I actually think it's the way that you will loves best. There is no love without honesty. Honesty requires bravery, and all of this will leave us open to criticism, pain, censure and being betrayed. Sounds pretty vulnerable to me!; 2:51 pm
Anonymous said...: Fine Stephen. I can readily endorse what you have said. However I have problems with what you don't say, as in by-passing the actual questions put to you, selectively editing responses to your critiques, and in proscribing third party exchange of relevant concerns with those who you purport to support. These problems beg questions about your primary motivations vis-a- vis your stated desire to encourage people to be honest, brave and vulnerable. Criticism of course can be discouraging, but there is not
much encouragement when exemplification of honesty and bravery is thin on the ground and vulnerability is apparently something to be avoided wherever possible. The concept of integrity is, as they say, "of the essence" here. These commnents however are not immutable. I may have reason to give thought to revising my appraisal of the situation if you allow the comments to be seen and considered by others.; 4:29 pm
Stephan Clark said...: Dear Suppressed
I am not quite sure what your point is. I try to answer what is asked.
You may not like my answers. Sometimes I am not being asked questions at all but (vis a vis rendering unto Caesar) am being asked trick questions. I would not pretend to be as perceptive as the Lord in this regard.
Given the limitations of the medium I also don't think it is at all realistic to ask multiple and complex questions and expect detailed answers in a blog that iot is only likely to maintain attention of people for 3 or 4 sentences (if lucky)
If you don't think I answer your question then ask again, maybe try and state your real intention a little more clearly.
For my part I will try to be honest and brave.
I will not always succeed at that lofty aim, and certainly will often fail to meet the expectations of others.
You may not think this very honest, or very brave. For my part I am being most vulnerable when I suggest to you it is the best that I can do, which may not meet your standards. Sorry!!; 5:38 pm
Anonymous said...: Dear Stephen,
I too must say "sorry". I had assumed, erroneously it seems, that I was addressing that extaordinarily erudite essayist who posts prodigious blogs. It would
appear that you are the Stephen of Coromandel Preachings, the deliverer of exemplary and dichotomous sermons, more given to the inculcation of
understanding than possessed of understanding per se. Much as I am fascinated by illuminating answers, it is evidently not my wont to put the questions that preachers want to understand. As I tentatively anticipated (and my pessimism notwithstanding) I now have reason to revise my previous appraisals. I am
sadder; but sadly, I fear, not wiser - non possumus.; 8:15 am
Stephan Clark said...: I think "preaching" is a rather different function from "blogging".
Preaching, which I feel (hopefully not presumptuously) is a charismatic gifting is part of my vocational response to what God requires me to be and do.
It is not essay writing in my mind, I spend my time trying to discern what God might be wanting me to say to our little flock.
Blogging is much less important than this. It may however serve a similar sort of function as conversation in that it allows the floating of ideas and some dialogue with them. Thus it clarifies stuff a bit....sometimes it makes them more obscure!!; 9:51 am