After watching Newsnight Scotland last night, I almost felt queasy at the thought that I support a political party that was once led by Gordon Wilson for a full eleven years. I trust he was excellent in a variety of other ways (I'm too young to properly remember), because his views on gay marriage are nothing short of nauseating. Apparently heterosexual couples will somehow feel that their marriages have been "tainted" if gay people are also allowed to marry. Can there be a more textbook example of the meaning of the word 'intolerance' than that? Never mind that not a single heterosexual marriage will be interfered with or downgraded in any way - for the likes of Wilson, if an 'unclean' person is allowed to do the same thing as him, that's somehow sufficient to 'corrupt' him by association. It's the rough equivalent of demanding that ethnic minorities must be banned from owning umbrellas, on the grounds that white people simply wouldn't be able to bear to touch their own brollies otherwise, and they'd get so wet.
The argument that the SNP shouldn't be bothering with this issue because a change in the law would benefit relatively few people is also deeply troubling. The whole purpose of legislative safeguards (and indeed constitutional safeguards in many countries) to protect minority groups is precisely that such people are supposed to matter just as much as anyone else, in spite of their numerical disadvantage. Or are we supposed to say - who cares about equality of access to public buildings for wheelchair users? After all, most people don't use wheelchairs.
And the formal statement issued by the Church of Scotland (suggesting that it would be dangerous to proceed on gay marriage because it might have an effect on heterosexual marriages that no-one has actually thought of yet) is risible beyond words. It reminds me of the Yes Minister scene where Sir Humphrey, having failed to dream up a credible argument against proceeding with a policy, resorts to a grave warning that he "foresees lots of unforeseen consequences". Not good enough - if the churches want the law to actively discriminate against a minority, at the very least the onus is on them to specify precisely how heterosexual marriages would be damaged by the alternative course of action. I wish them luck. As for the church spokesman who implied that gay marriage is the solution to a problem that doesn't exist, I'd suggest John McKee's recent article on Labour Hame ought to be required reading -
"I was a pretty fantastic liar – a master. Gay people are, were, made to be. Once the realisation took hold, the fear – it’s the fear that’s the problem – built a structure of outward deceit. Every time a mate said “don’t be such a poof” to you because you don’t fancy going out that night or some other social inadequacy worthy of the epithet, your stomach does three somersaults. Every time, for eight years. Not a day – barely an hour – went by without someone pejoratively using “gay” – mainly to mean “bad”...
...the problem is the pervasive and powerful idea of that his civil partnership was different to a heterosexual marriage. The power of this difference holds even more sway outside of cushy green tea-sipping philosophy Narnias. It is this same notion that suffocates the life of gay teenagers...
Marriage is the social benchmark of acceptance. It’s special in society – a condition that the state grants privileges to, that families celebrate and that reeks of social approval – it validates relationships. That same validation should be offered to the love between two men or two women: it will go a long way to breaking down the difference that I have described. This is why marriage for gay couples, not just civil partnerships, is necessary."
Is McKee overstating his case? Is it going too far to suggest that people who simply oppose gay marriage are having the same destructive effect as the peddlers of homophobic 'banter' in the playground? For as long as someone like Gordon Wilson thinks that the mere fact of sharing the institution of marriage with gay people would somehow "taint" his own marriage, it's hard to conclude that the answer can be anything other than 'no'.
The debate in this area isn't helped by demonizing either side. The traditional view of marriage was that it served the function of ensuring a stable environment for childrearing. That understanding is deeply embedded within Graeco-Roman law and philosophy and within the Judaeo-Christian tradition, and hence within Scottish society which stands as inheritor of those traditions. If you want to reject that traditional understanding, fine, but the burden of proof is on you to explain how that will serve the common good of society. The Kirk is quite correct to suggest that this sort of investigation requires more than a few months consultation: we are discussing issues that are fundamental to how we view successful childrearing and human intimacy.
ReplyDeleteRemove any civil legitimacy from religious marriage.
ReplyDeleteHave the registrar act on behalf of the country as the only legitimate social arbiter of what constitutes a valid marriage in the country.
That way society can coem to it's own decisions about waht's valid without the overly-represented religious minority dictating things.
The religious folk can have their beliefs in the special sanctity of their special bonding by their special belief system - in their own community only.
Everyone then gets what they claim to want.
Let's make religion the private focus of a private community, and the rest of us can just get on.
As an older person I can let you know that Gordon Wilson was a bit crap, more interested in the pressure group and jumble sakes than actually achieving much
ReplyDeleteI was glad he was in the past before he opened his gob, now more do.
Marriage is a public declaration of commitment between two people. Trying to justify exclusion by 'Greco-Roman prejudices of 3000 yeas ago is bollocks of the highest water
All praise to the SNP for bringing in equality of marriage, and I sincerely wish it to pass. John Mason articulated a great view for Christians.
Anyway, Christians are onto a nonstarter here.
Either Christ replaced the aws of the Old Testament, in which case we need to talk to them about mixing fibres, eating tref foods etc, or they should stop only relying on the bits of the Old Testanent they like.
Their way leads to situations like in Afghanistan, marry your rapist or be punished for being raped
I really don’t think the SNP needs to be lectured in this way by this self-proclaimed “seasoned campaigner”, the way he talked on Newsnight you would think that he knew everything there was to know about electioneering and political campaigns. What a shame Brewer did not remind him of the disastrous campaigns he actually led in 1983 where the SNP vote share went down and 1987 when in Dundee East he was dumped for Labour’s John McAllion!
ReplyDeleteAnd now he pops up on Newsnight to get publicity for his campaign of bigotry by deliberately misconstruing the issue and even more unforgivably by linking it to the campaign for independence. A link that hitherto probably very few people would have made. Gordon it’s a CONSULTATION!! I would have thought with all those years of “seasoned campaigning” under your belt you would know the difference between a policy document and a consultation document. Unless of course you are doing it deliberately to further the narrow ends of your own agenda by playing on the sensibilities of the less well educated.
He neatly, like the consummate politician he tells us all he once was, sweeps Brewer’s point about them doing it in England (David Cameron said so) and Scotland being seen as a backward country aside with the “that’s political correctness” jibe without making any attempt to answer the point.
I do remember Gordon Wilson as leader and quite frankly if he had stayed in harness we would probably be worse off than Plaid Cymru are now. His speeches were more droning than uplifting.
As Holy a coalition as a colander and less useful.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if it has occurred to Wilson and his campaign that the other parties are (with some dissenters) likely to back this bill. This includes the three unionist parties which will be actively campaigning against independence.
ReplyDelete(Cameron has already given the green light, and it is likely that Ruth take the same course; the Liberals support gay marriage and I find it hard to believe that Labour would want to vote against it.) Additionally the Greens who back independence, are likely to take a pro stance.
That will leave the churches and religious organisations with no political stance, or party, to back.
Additionally it is likely to become law in the rest of Great Britain (England and Wales) in the foreseeable future so staying in the union is not something the churches could advocate with any credibility.
Within ten years same sex marriage will probably have entered law in most countries in Europe, with the exception of the Vatican City State and possibly Northern Ireland, and we will wonder what all the fuss was about.
I think Wilson's campaign to try to persuade the SNP to refuse to back gay marriage is a lost cause. It simply doesn't stand up to any intelligent scrutiny.
I agree with you that Wilson's language (he used the word 'repulsed') and the implication that homosexual marriage would "taint" heterosexual marriage was shameful. It is as well that Wilson is no longer in any position of power. He might even be in danger of losing 'pro' votes himself.
In any case I can't help but worry for people who find themselves repulsed by other people's sexual activities, of whatever sort they may be.
I'd suggest to them that the best way to avoid this revulsion is to try to spend as little time as possible in deep and detailed contemplation of them!
Works for me.
Lazarus : "The traditional view of marriage was that it served the function of ensuring a stable environment for childrearing...if you want to reject that traditional understanding, fine."
ReplyDeleteIf my belief that gay people should be allowed to marry on the same basis as everyone else is a rejection of the traditional view of marriage as you define it, I can only conclude that you also think that anyone who believes that post-menopausal women (and indeed infertile people of both genders and all ages) should be allowed to marry are also rejecting that traditional view. That's an extraordinary view for you to to hold, and I'd be interested to hear your justification for it.
" and I find it hard to believe that Labour would want to vote against it"
ReplyDeleteActually Tris, I can see Scottish Labour doing exactly that. As always, we have interesting times ahead of us.
@ James
ReplyDeleteCould you point to any stage of Roman or Scottish law that envisaged such a ban? (I think you're inventing traditional strawmen here.)
James
ReplyDeleteIt actually used to be a point of view held by Churches that childless couples were also not true marriages since the purpose of marriage is to beget children.
In which case Lazarus and those that think as him are welcome to have me remonstrate with him in whatever way seems meet to me.
Or is he Going to answer my point that he can't have it both ways
As a Christian he has abandoned the Laws of God, the Laws given via Moses to Man in favour of the love of the Nazarene then you are stymied. Remember, Christianity means abandoning the laws of the Jews and only requiring the acceptance if Christ
Because the New Testament makes no judgement on homosexuals, except in mistranslation.
Don Mc. I based my prediction on research hurriedly done this afternoon. It appears that Ed Miliband has said he supports gay marriage, and earlier this year called for progress towards this end. (Wikipedia article on same sex marriage.)
ReplyDeleteI know that Wikipedia shouldn't be taken as gospel (if you'll pardon the unintentional pun), but I'm guessing that the sources for articles of this type are fairly well followed up.
The same article incidentally, gives Cameron, Clegg and Lucas as being in favour too.
Of course it is always possible that the Scottish Labour party might take a different line (just to be awkward) and, as they don't currently have a leader, I wouldn't like to make firm predictions. The leader of MEPs in Europe has backed the idea, as has George Foulkes. If the Scottish leader stands against it, he or she is going to be a lonely wee soul. Incidentally backing is also available from religious sources, both Anglican and C of S.
Lazarus: I always have a bit of difficulty taking claims for the need to follow strictly the teachings of the bible (old or new testaments) seriously. A brief perusal of Leviticus, for example, gives some doubtless very sensible guidelines for godly living in the Middle East of several thousands of years ago, but most of them would be considered very strange practices in the 21st century. And if the word of god is indeed the word of god, we can't cherry pick, surely?
@ anon
ReplyDelete1) Any evidence of the claim that childlessness was traditionally regarded in Scotland as nullifying a marriage? I'm sure you're wrong, but will happily discuss any specific evidence you can produce to back up your claim.
2) Your characterization of Christianity is completely unrecognizable. Again, could you point to any mainstream denomination in Scotland that holds the view that there are no moral standards of behaviour generally, let alone in the field of sexual ethics?
3) The question of the Biblical treatment of homosexuality is, as you know, highly argued over. (As a Catholic, I have only a limited interest in this as the Church's authoritative teaching on the matter is crystal clear.) At the least, yours is a modern and minority interpretation.
4) Let's cut to the chase on this. My claim is that traditional marriage serves the common social good by being focused on the rearing of children and providing support for the partner (usually a woman) who sacrifices her economic power to raise children. That is (factually) the predominant, traditional understanding of marriage in Scotland.
Proponents of same sex marriage need to overcome two argumentative burdens. Firstly, they need to explain why they know more than previous generations about the structuring of society in this fundamental area. Secondly, they need to explain why, even putting aside this weight of human experience, the features of traditional marriage (eg advisability for adults and life long sexual fidelity) serve the common good when extended beyond the male/female couple.
That there may be some problematic cases (such as infertile couples) in the present state of marriage this is not an argument for making the present institution even more dysfunctional by including same sex couples. It may be an argument for excluding these existing problematic cases. I wouldn't make such an argument, but please feel free to do so if you wish.
@tris
Did I make such an argument based on the Bible? Catholic ethical teaching is based upon the natural law: essentially, the Graeco-Roman philosophical reflection on human nature seen through a Christian prism. Although Protestants would doubtless point out that their way of interpreting of the Bible is also a deal more sophisticated than you're making it out to be, I will leave it to them to do this.
Well, no you didn't, Lazarus, I must admit that I merely assumed that the teachings of the church would be based upon the world of god. Pardon me. I was clearly misinformed. I was led to believe that christianity was based on the teachings of Christ as revealed to mankind in the new testament and the word of god in the old testament.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that I thought this because of the christian state's determination to ram the bible, in both its parts, down our throats at RE in school, regardless of our religious beliefs.
I didn't state that childlessness was regarded in SCOTLAND, at least not in particular, as nullifying a marriage, but in the Church did
ReplyDeleteThe State regards intercourse, whether fertile or not as consummation, the Church not so
I didn'tsay that the Churches don't have views on any views, I said that the Bible doesn't support them
The Christian view is that Christ supplants the Laws of Moses, the Laws of God, all those strictions of Leviticus are for those silly Jews
However the original Greek and Aramaic texts of the New Testament say nothjing condemning homosexuality
Lazraus : "(I think you're inventing traditional strawmen here.)"
ReplyDeleteEr, no. It would only be a straw man (of the "traditional" or any other variety) if I hadn't actually been identifying a fundamental logical flaw in the central point you were making.
As far as I can gather, your belief is this -
1) The "traditional view of marriage" is that its function is to provide a stable environment for childrearing.
2) For reasons you fail to specify, any marriage that fails to fulfil this function must be subject to an outright legal ban.
3) For reasons you fail to specify, the "burden of proof" falls on those who do not support such draconian bans to explain why lifting them will "serve the common good of society".
I infer from your response to me that you do not think post-menopausal women should be banned from marrying. By your own inescapable logic, therefore, the onus is now on you to provide us with a detailed explanation for why such a ban is not appropriate.
Either that, or the "traditional understanding of marriage" is considerably more complicated than you would have us believe. Which is it?
"Firstly, they need to explain why they know more than previous generations about the structuring of society in this fundamental area."
ReplyDeleteDear God, I certainly hope we're presumptuous enough to say we know a hell of a lot more than previous generations about the structuring of society - otherwise we might as well start sending children down pits again, and strip women of the right to vote.
"The traditional view of marriage was that it served the function of ensuring a stable environment for childrearing. "
ReplyDeleteWrong. The traditional view of marriage was that it served the function of protection of property rights. To a large extent, that is still what it does. What either property rights or childrearing has to do with denying gays the right to marry, since gays may and often do rear children and have generally have property is fairly mysterious.
The churches who believe that gay marriage is wrong (as repellent as I find that belief) should not be interfered with.
However, the churches who believe that gays have the moral right to marry should NOT have their beliefs interfered with either.
I find Mr. Wilson's attempt to interfere in other people's rights and lives just as repulsive as he finds me and my sexuality.
@ James
ReplyDeleteSome things were wrong in the past. Some things were right. But the burden of proof is on those who would argue that institutions that worked in the past should be done away with to show how this will advance the common good.
@ J R Tomlin
When you refer to property rights, I assume you mean passing them down across the generations...? (Notice the connection with procreation.)
In the end, this is not an argument about attitudes to homosexuality or heterosexuality in general. Most heterosexual relationships (one night stands, adultery, holiday romances etc) are ignored by the state, just as most homosexual relationships are. So why urge that one particular relationship -life long sexual fidelity- is privileged above all the other possibilities? It makes sense if it's to serve the common good by childrearing; it doesn't make sense if it's just about romantic love. (The state has no interest in promoting romantic love.)
@ James 'I infer from your response to me that you do not think post-menopausal women should be banned from marrying. By your own inescapable logic, therefore, the onus is now on you to provide us with a detailed explanation for why such a ban is not appropriate.'
ReplyDelete1) Traditionally, they were not banned from marrying. The burden of proof is therefore on those who would wish to change this. (I don't. I assume that really you don't either.)
2) You are arguing that another group which can't have children -same sex couples- should be included. Even if there weren't good reasons for the present 'problem' cases' (eg post menopausal women) -and I think it clear that there are (eg the difficulty in assessing fertility; invasion of privacy by the state))- it would still be a poor argument that, because the present institution of marriage has some dysfunctional aspects, further dysfunctional aspects should be introduced.
No Lazarus
ReplyDeleteI have pointed out that Theologically, your petty prejudices have no foundation
Which is why you deliberately misinterpret or ignore me when I point this out to you
I have seen your posts last time this came up, the name was different, but the arguments were the same
All you have is prejudice and hate, no Christian foundation for your beliefs, and certainly no Christian Love
I'm slightly puzzled about what's intended by the 'Common Good'. In liberal democracies goods are heterogeneous and legislation is normative.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGordon Wilson must be unhinged if he thinks that this issue will prevent lifelong advocates of Independence from voting for it, now that it is finally within their grasp, simply in order to twit the SNP led Scottish Government. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! But flushing your own and your nations future down the toilet because the SNP wants to ask the people of Scotland if gay people should be allowed to marry and if so do so in a church, and whether the church should be made to be inclusive and join the rest of us in the 21st Century, is not just ridiculous its downright insane. Mr Wilson should be carted off to the booby hatch forthwith and allowed to write his next book in crayon.
ReplyDeleteI beg your pardon, I initially used the wrong write in the above: not to write a book but to turn right..maybe I should joing Gordon in Barmy Doune!!
I'm also slightly puzzled by what's intended in the notion that 'natural law is essentially, the Graeco-Roman philosophical reflection on human nature seen through a Christian prism'.
ReplyDeleteThere was to say the least a great deal of diversity among Greeks and Romans about nature, and human nature, and likewise there was over 800 years of intense Catholic and Protestant interpretation and reinterpretation following the baptism of Aristotle in the middle ages.
For example, natural law is not a possibility in Augustine, yet the particular combination of Augustine and Paul is identified as the Scottish tradition of Christianity until at least the early twentieth century.
ReplyDeleteTo take another Scottish example, for the great mediaeval catholic theologian, Duns Scotus, the laws of the state are positive laws, and their legitimacy is ultimately derived from the free will of the people.
I'm sure that Gordon's pan loafy attempt to ram his own brand of morality down people's throats may very well come back to bite him and his intolerant friends on the backside. I for one could not have cared one hoot for gay marriages hitherto Gordon’s loony attempt to link it with the independence referendum. But now I am furious that he may have put something I have waited all my life for in jeopardy (Scottish independence) to satiate his own thirst for religious cant. Rather than not vote for independence to spite the Scottish Government I will now campaign vociferously for gay marriages in order to spike Gordon Wilson and his small minded campaign. I see that his speech to “Scotland for marriage” is on youtube where so far it has gained 41 dislikes and 2 likes...that’s some minority Gordon!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esPAwzxNNmM&feature=player_embedded
@ Orpheuslyre
ReplyDeleteI think you're running a lot of different issues into each other, but if your fundamental point is that there is no one set of conclusions that can be guaranteed under the general tradition 'natural law' or 'Graeco-Roman philosophical reflection on human nature', I'd agree with you. Now, as a Catholic, and one who broadly would see himself as arguing within a recognizable Thomist/Aristotelian position, I'm going to have a particular position within that tradition. And if you are an Augustinian (or perhaps, more radically, a Lockean!) you will have a slightly different position. (But you are simply wrong to claim that natural law is an impossibility in Augustine.) In the long run, I'd argue that an Aristotelian position as interpreted by the Catholic Church is the more fruitful one. But in the short term, I'd just like people to think seriously about human nature and how human flourishing can best be embodied in the political order. And that includes serious thought about how we raise children, and what role marriage plays in that. It is the complete absence of any such debate in the current discussion of the reinvention of marriage that worries me more than the variety of perspectives that might be brought to bear on these issues.
"1) Traditionally, they were not banned from marrying. The burden of proof is therefore on those who would wish to change this. (I don't. I assume that really you don't either.)"
ReplyDeleteThe argument that "because something is traditional, it must be good unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary" is a legitimate (if silly) one, but it directly contradicts the point you started by making - ie. that, traditionally, the sole purpose of marriage is to facilitate childrearing. Clearly, many 'traditional' types of marriage have nothing whatever to do with childrearing, so if you want to maintain any credibility you really need to dispense with that part of your argument. But, no, instead you just keep digging with this (rather amusing) display of logical gymnastics -
"2) You are arguing that another group which can't have children -same sex couples- should be included. Even if there weren't good reasons for the present 'problem' cases' (eg post menopausal women) -and I think it clear that there are (eg the difficulty in assessing fertility; invasion of privacy by the state))- it would still be a poor argument that, because the present institution of marriage has some dysfunctional aspects, further dysfunctional aspects should be introduced."
Seriously, mate, there's no "difficulty in assessing fertility" in a 60+ year old woman - she cannot conceive naturally, full stop. Should we therefore dispense with such "dysfunctional" marriages? If not, why not? If your only answer to that question is the ludicrous point about "tradition", then by definition the "traditional understanding of marriage" must always have been about far more than childrearing - otherwise post-menopausal women would always have been banned from marrying.
"Some things were wrong in the past. Some things were right. But the burden of proof is on those who would argue that institutions that worked in the past should be done away with to show how this will advance the common good."
"Done away with"? Who is suggesting doing away with marriage? If you can find someone who is, I'll be on your side in arguing against them. No wonder you were so quick to mention the words "straw men" earlier - you seem to be an expert on those. Incidentally, I was amused to see on your blog a suggestion that "straight pride" marches would be a good idea. Well, I'd also be happy to join you on one of those, as long as the political purpose was exactly the same as gay pride marches, ie. to demand equality between people of different sexual orientations. Unfortunately, your idea of straight pride seems to be that heterosexual relationships are superior to gay relationships. Try "straight chauvinism".
Oh, and if you think that enshrining homophobia into the law has "worked in the past", rather than causing untold and unnecessary misery to gay people, I'd suggest the "burden of proof" is actually on you to justify such an extraordinary claim.
There's no point in a discussion with religious fundamentalists.
ReplyDeleteThat's fine, each spasm they have in response to society (which they become increasingly detached from) simply pushes them further into irrelevance.
Instead, what we ought to do each time these fits of pique occur, is to question why religion has the priviliged position it has in political and civic life. We ought to be questioning why it persist in all schools.
We ought to be disentagling it from the affairs of our state, and putting religion in its place.
Lazarus
ReplyDeletewell, my most general point is that I see few arguments, as such, in the copious amount you've written. Mostly it amounts to fallacies of the type 'argument from authority', or shifting the ground. Whenever you have managed to state something that wasn't divertingly replete with vague allusion, it was shredded.
Who shattered the might of Sparta, that Greek Society whose boys were raised to love men? Of whom it was said "All Greeks know what s right, only the Spartans do it"
ReplyDeleteWhy, the Theban Sacred Band, another group of fighting homosexuals
Hadrian gave Rome stability, bent as a three-bob note and married a man, and ar from the only noble Roman to value the love of their own gender
So much for Graeco-Roman prejudice
Gordon Wilson giving Alex Salmond advice on how to win elections. Lol.
ReplyDeleteHere's Michelle Bachmann's views on the subject.... sheeesh...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/michele-bachman-gets-things-straight-on-gay-marriage/2011/12/01/gIQAFKgwHO_blog.html