[percy-l] gay marriage
Karey L. Perkins
karey at charter.net
Wed Aug 13 15:53:39 EDT 2003
MessageI don't think any of us has the right to judge another. How can we
truly know and judge the reasons/motivations two individuals love and marry?
A man and a woman can, and often do, marry each other (enter into a
heterosexual union) for all sorts of bad reasons -- the man may want a
trophy wife (what about sexual appetite and gratification there?), the woman
may want a comfy or luxurious high profile lifestyle (or perhaps she just
wants to get out of the house), the woman's father could have a shotgun to
the man's head (sexual appetite thus being the precursor to this), the man
marries the boss's daughter to get ahead in his career (OK, he's not madly
in love, but she's nice enough and not too bad looking), the woman marries
the man because all her friends and family like him, think he's nice, a good
catch, whatever, etc. etc. Two individuals being of appropriate gender
(m/f) hardly ensures admirable and spiritual reasons for entering into
Two individuals being of "inappropriate" gender does not define their
ove - even eros - for each other is an evil or bad thing.
I think our spirits/souls ultimately transcend gender -- God has no genitals
(although we traditionally and misleadingly refer to "Him" as a "He," gender
is by definition a physical trait and God is not physical - only Jesus).
I agree with Steve that a case of two men who live together and love each
other as friends (i.e.: just roommates) is very different from two gay men
who are in love and wish to marry. A homosexual "marriage" bond has far
more in common with a heterosexual marriage than any other relationship
between persons of the same gender - or any other present word in our
vocabulary we might apply to it.
I don't know what to think about homosexuality, nor do I completely
understand why two individuals of the same gender fall "in love" and wish to
express that love physically -- but they do, and for them, I believe it is
the same experience as two individuals of opposite gender who do the same th
ing. Some homosexuals ARE in it merely for physical gratification, just as
some heterosexuals have sex merely for physical gratification. But would
anyone say that all heterosexual marriages are just about sexual
gratification? Of course not. The same is true of homosexual marriages.
The one thing I do know is it's not for me to judge others nor to impose
rules on how to conduct their lives -- that's God's domain. I've got my own
stuff to worry about.
----- Original Message -----
From: Parlin, Steven
To: 'Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion'
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 10:41 AM
Subject: RE: [percy-l] gay marriage
I'm not sure "totally" doesn't fit (though perhaps it's fruitless to
speculate about WP's thoughts). In "something to displease both sides",
Percy never wavered on the (total) wrongness of killing unborn children.
It's insanity and "totally", not partly, wrong. He was merely pointing out
the intellectual myopia that exists on both sides of the political
quagmire --and there is a lot of it. But, you're probably right that Percy
would have surprised and delighted and shocked with his comments.
Two very good friends of mine are homosexual, one is in his late 60's and I
speak with him regularly about these sorts of things. He knows (and
unfortunately has "known") a lot of homosexuals. I can tell you there is
hardly consensus among the homosexuals about what this agenda is really
"Truth of gay love as a personal bond"? Hmm.... I love my best friend (since
kinder) probably more than I love anyone in the world, but our "personal
bond" is hardly a marriage, and I hardly want to be sexual with him. But,
even more to the point...what of my love for my father? Love is not really
a part of this debate.
The truth is, again citing my friend, homosexual "bonds" are hardly about
love and committment and the like. It's mostly about sexual appetite and
Society's need to accept this? Society needs to accept homosexuals, but not
From: Robert_Pauley at oxy.com [mailto:Robert_Pauley at oxy.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 7:08 PM
To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: RE: [percy-l] gay marriage
I don't think "totally" is the right adverb for any Walker Percy position.
He was too intellectually supple. Remember his piece on abortion in the New
York Times -- ... "Something to displease both sides." I believe he would
have found a way to deconstruct the moral and semantic choplogic of "gay
marriage" while allowing for the truth of gay love as a personal bond, and
of society's need to accept this, short of formal social or religious
sanctification. He would, again, have displeased both sides.
From: percy-l-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:percy-l-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of James Piat
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 4:59 PM
To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion
Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage
I think we are all very much products of our circumstances -- and tend
to get more conservative as we age. Of his writings I like Percy's essays
the most, and The Movie Goer more than The Thanatos Syndrome. I'm not so
sure Percy would be totally against gay marriage were he around today.
Times change; people change.
Regards from Atlanta
I think Percy would be totally against gay marriage. But that's why
I'm glad I don't walk around wearing a "WWPD?" wrist band. I think he was
definitely a product of his time and place, and his later novels
particularly illustrate his out-of-place feeling in the 1970's. And didn't
it seem like he became more conservative and doctrinaire as he grew older?
It's been a while since I've read Percy, but I remember The Thanatos
Syndrome being a lot more "preachy" than his early novels...
Regards from Chapel Hill,
An archive of all list discussion is available at
Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Percy-L