These are the same paradigms that get churches to become comfortable with abortion (a suffering woman), or multiple divorce and remarriage (suffering spouses), or unwed mothers (a suffering woman...again) or women's ordination (surprise! a suffering woman) or communion for the unbaptized (a suffering unbaptized visitor), well, it goes on and on. The ultra-PC gay 'church' MCC stopped using wine and wheat in their communion services so as to accomodate alcoholics and the gluten-allergic. Someone is unhappy, expresses themselves as "suffering" and voila! the "loving" Christians jettison one plank of their tradition after another.
This is the heart of liberalism: utter capitulation to anyone who can convince you that they are the suffering victim of...well, you. They get to be themselves, as they are, and you have to take them, no questions ask and above all, no demands made. The end results must be suicide, the culmination of the fraudulent morality of ahimsa, where you can no longer harm anyone because you no longer exist.
Although it was decades ago, I was once a suffering homosexual in the Church. So I am not being cavalier about this. But with the perspective of years, having seen how it all unfolds over time, I am --amazingly!-- affirmed in my decision to depart rather than spending the last 30 years trying to make a 2000 year old tradition that (once) helped build one of the great civilizations of planet Earth turn itself inside out so I would feel better.
One of the structural flaws, though, in simply designating homosexuality as a sin is that you have to maintain, with only a little window dressing about avoiding "unjust discrimination", a static stance of rejection which, if eventually, softened into acceptance, leaves you completely at the mercy of the group you formerly rejected. Your options are either staunch resistance or abject surrender.
Because when a church or synagogue or other traditional institution drops its rejection, what it is bringing in is the gay culture, the world of LGBTism. The same is true with feminism, etc. Having gained the superior moral status of victim, it cannot be questioned and indeed becomes a gold standard. And so we have the further dissolution of the organism.
In my current musings about a post-Christian faith for EuroWhites, it dawns on me that if you accept the overwhelming centrality of the male-female character of humanity and make marriage-and-family the centerpiece of most people's lives --as I think you must--- but still wish to make a place for the tiny numbers of homosexuals, you should develop a specific and separate status for them, one that combines acceptance with a set of conditions, just like for straight people and marriage.
Marriage is not a homosexual institution, but the pre-eminent heterosexual institution, ordered toward the creation of a family. Same-sex attraction and love has its own inner logic, IMHO, and it would be wiser and kinder for all concerned to make a secondary form for them, not unlike the alternate forms created for vocational celibates such as monks.
I am not talking about celibate homosexuals, but those who wish to make a same-sex bond. That way you can keep marriage at the center and in its traditional form, you can find a place for gays or lesbians in your community so that they do not get to lay down the rules for you, as "suffering victims", but have a path for them that contains them within, offers them an honorable life and avoids the chaos of being ruled by victims who, whatever their subjective intentions, are vectors of an ideological decay and chaos.
Societies that made conscious public room for same-sex folks always created structures in which to contain them --as they did for everyone. The ancient Greeks, either in the military comrade mode or in the erastes-eromenos mode, channeled same-sex male eros into a form that served the culture rather than undermined it. Granted that I have a personal interest, but it seems wiser in the long run to institutionalize same-sex eros in a form that matches its own reality (not the heterosexual drag of marriage) and yet provides a support to the whole group or culture or faith.
2 comments:
What about the Catholic history of blood brotherhoods? Were the Templars gay enough for them to become an Order for gay men? If not, are either Bacchus or Sergius gay enough in reality to have their own Orders? If you had something different in mind, that is cool too.
I brought this up before and I am sure that you might find it nonsense but, the term were was not only once the alliteration for wife but, was also a kind of homoerotic theme in 19th Century literature. The werewolf was a man who married to the soul of a male wolf and become a monstrosity. Though, new words that fit better could probably be made. Also, I am open to the likelihood that the person who wrote that, I do not remember where I read it, was kind of trying to revise history in favor of BLT politics.
-A
I agree with the recognition of marriage as that bond between a man and a woman, open to life in the context of the community. Also, I agree with the recognition of same-sex (sexual) relationships as morally good relationships which are obviously not marriage because they are of a different essence. I also agree with the rejection/non-discrimination/acceptance/indebtedness of the Christian community to the LGBT community. With that I think it is difficult to recognize a distinct essence of same-sex relationship with a distinct goodness. I think it is difficult because we live in the paradygm of the rejection/non-discrimination...etc. process, so I think it is difficult to recognize sam-sex relations as a distinct essence and distinct goodness. In short we would have to be atentive to the actual essence of same-sex relationships as opposed to the mechanical process that leads to an equivocation of same-sex and opposite-sex relationships in the historical context. It is difficult to buck the trend, but I think being attentive to nature is a start.
Post a Comment