|
Hi Karey...
You've made some thoughtful remarks here,
but I must disagree with some of it, err...most of it.
This is getting a little distressing to
find so many on this list who are dedicated to understanding the work of
WP, one of the only cultural critics of our age who really had his
eyes open, and yet who fail to see the inverted nature of the times we
are living in.
I don't wish to belabor this issue of 'gay
marriage', but i think this is a fairly clear indicator of just how muddled
our times have become, precisely the sort of thing that so troubled Percy.
You wrote: I 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?
[SP] We do have the right to judge. We
all do it every day...and it's a damn good thing too. There are any
number of "wrong" behaviors that we judge everday. It's wrong to kill, lie,
cheat, steal, push down old ladies, and kick small animals and so
on... regardless of the motivation or reason... I for one am
quite glad that there remain some social structures, however erroded they are
becoming, that "judge" my behavior. Keeps me in line.
Yes, the judgement comes from above; it's God's
alone. However, it is our responsibility to point it out when others are in
conflict with God's judgement. I fully expect others to point it out when I am
in conflict with God's laws. The problem isnt that we judge too much, but that
we don't do it enough! (Judge not lest you be judged? Exactly, judge not
according to your own laws lest you be judged according to those same laws.
God fully expects us to judge each other according to his laws).
You Wrote:
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 wedlock.
[SP] Some very good points. In fact, most of what
you have cited here is a demonstration of why most marriages are not really
marriages at all, at least not as far as marriage is recognized by the RC
Church. Most of what you cite here constitutes an invalid marriage. However,
its bad logic to say that because heterosexuals are just as deranged in
their understanding of marriage, homosexuals ought to be entitled to "marry".
Hmm.
Two individuals being of "inappropriate"
gender does not define their love - even eros - for each other
is an evil or bad thing.
[SP] No...just of a different nature and
order.
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).
[SP] This sounds very Gnostic Karey...we are embodied
creatures and male and femal genitals are by design ordered to fit
corespondingly. I can't eat glass or drink gasoline because these
things are not ordered to my being... Why? I have a specific body for
which these things are not specifically made. And, in fact they
can do great harm to me.
Frankly put...a penis is by design ordered to the
vagina (in more ways than one!). But, a penis is NOT ordered to the anus
(which according to my homosexual friends is invariably painful, and does harm
to them). Moreover...No life will ever spring from the lining of the
rectum. What a thought.
BTW:
"He" and "His" and "Him" are pronouns that describe God's nature (and his
relationship to us) not his person. Of course God is genderless. But, he
is masculine. Not male, but masculine. To be a little graphic: He is a
penetrator (when invited in) not a receiver. He is the impregnator;
not the impregnated. He is the father; not the mother. It's a mystery of
course and our language fails to apprehend it fully...but C.S. Lewis once put
it best...that in our relationship to God, we are all feminine. And, moreover
there is a specific reason for why Jesus was male, not female...and it has
nothing to do with the time that he appeared for he was very little concerned
with propriety. God is specific, orderly, and designs things for a particular
purpose.
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.
[SP] Okay...but I'm curious why you
agree with me because you missed my point. There is no difference here, and
for that matter there is no way for the state to determine whether
my love for my best friend is any different than two homosexuals
wanting to be recognized as a couple. Except one --I'm not screwing
my best friend. I love him, but I don't want to hump him. In
any case, marriage is not an existential reality for homosexuals. They can go
through the motions (egads) but they can never really be married. It's
like this...I can call myself a rabbit, yell it from the rooftops, but that
doesn't make me a rabbit. That's what's going on here.
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 thing. 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.
[SP] I don't
understand it either. Even after having my homosexual friends explain it
to me.
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.
[SP] You're right... it is God's domain. And
if it were the case that I was presenting MY OWN judgment, I'd say you would
all need to have me stoned. For no one has the right to pass THEIR OWN
judgement based on THEIR OWN understanding of reality. That's extremely
dangerous (and in fact is happening in Ireland right now and will likely
happen here very shortly). In fact, I'm willing to wager that at least some of
you on this list have already judged me...according to your own understanding
of rightness and wrongness.
We must
Judge, but according to higher things...not our own silly notions.
That's
precisely why we have no alternative but to rely on God's natural and moral
laws. Moreover, that is in fact why the Catholic Church is the most obedient,
not the most authoritarian of the faiths. She doesn't give sway to things
like homosexual marriages because she CAN'T do so and remain obedient. She
doesn't have the authority to make such changes.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 10:41 AM
Subject: RE: [percy-l] gay marriage
Dear RP
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 about.
"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 gratification.
Society's need to accept
this? Society needs to accept homosexuals, but not homosexuality.
Steve
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.
Best, RP
Dear Phil,
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
Jim
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,
Phil
--
An archive of all list discussion is available at
http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail
Visit the Walker Percy
Project at
http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy
|
