Like-minded same-sex marriage enthusiasts have set up a Facebook group to encourage one another in their desire to see a Marriage Canon change to accommodate same-sex couples. As of this writing, there are 1269 members. In the spirit of full inclusion, it is a closed group, so you can only see what is going on if you join. I did and here is the stated purpose of the group:
As administrators of this group, we want to reiterate our purpose because we have more than doubled membership over the past couple of days. It’s important that we are all on the same page and that we continue to promote a safe space where people can be free to express their thoughts, feelings and emotions.
We want to clarify for everyone who is part of this group our intent in coming together here as stated in our description …
“This is to be a forum for support and to encourage each other as we head into this important conversation. Many continue to feel hurt and excluded; others are wanting to continue working for justice, respect and dignity for all as equal members of the body of Christ … the living out of our baptismal covenant. Pray for wisdom and the grace of God through the Holy Spirit as we continue this prophetic mission and ministry for equality for all, and especially our LGBTQ community!”
We trust that everyone who is here as a member of this group shares this purpose and desires this outcome.
The last sentence confirms that dissenters are unwelcome, a fact whose accuracy was reinforced after I posted this:
I’m opposed to changing the marriage canon but thought I would join the group to see if anyone has said anything that might change my mind. They haven’t.
The reply:
I was under the impression that people who have joined this group understood that Jesus loves everyone, all inclusive. I’m all for healthy debate but I’m unsure if that is possible in this situation.
So, as you can see, with full inclusion, no debate is possible.
Very shortly after posting my comment I was booted out of the group by the moderators.
I feel so excluded.
Hi David,
I think it’s important to point out that you are drawing some conclusions that are not exactly accurate. For starters, at no point does the group say it was created for all people. As you pointed out, it clearly states that the group is supposed to be a safe place for those who would support a changing of the marriage cannon. Once you self identified that this was not the case for you, it stands to reason that this would not be an appropriate place for your membership. There may have been some room for discussion on this (I can’t speak for all the administrators), but I’m sure it will not come as a surprise to hear that, given your past tendency to speak in highly judgmental terms about anyone who holds a different opinion to you, or anyone “liberal”, this was not a risk we were willing to take. As I’m sure you may have seen while part of the group, there are some exceptionally vulnerable people, with stories of deep hurt that are being shared. It would be irresponsible of us to put them at the kind of risk your writing tendencies would create.
In our baptismal promises we all agree to respect the dignity of all persons. Many of your previous writings would suggest this is an ability that escapes you at times. The fact that you would use your limited experience with this group, which is trying to create a safe space for people who have been hurt by many in the church, to create yet another “let me take a shot at liberal/progressive Christianity” simply shows that we made the right choice.
Personally, I was sad because I think that it’s important people from different perspectives be able to speak with each other to promote understanding, compassion, and even learning new possible truths. However, until people from all perspectives can do that without resorting to name calling, disrespect, and antagonizing each other, none of us can accurately say we’re doing all we can to help usher in the Kingdom of God.
Jon,
I think you have underestimated my ability to draw accurate conclusions.
First of all, theological conservatives in liberal dioceses have been routinely ridiculed, hounded out and finally have had their buildings taken from them. If anyone has been hurt in this ecclesiastical farce it is conservatives. Funnily enough, though, we don’t insist on erecting a safe space in which to cry. Incidentally, in my former diocese I and those with similar opinions were known as “fundies”.
Second, I generally only make fun of those whose invitation to do so is irresistible. I note with interest, though, that you have stereotyped me as “highly judgemental”, an epithet whose burden I am not unwilling to bear, were it not for the fact that I really don’t judge myself any less of a sinner than anyone else.
Third, you will note that your comment has been approved on this blog – a conservative Anglican blog – whereas I have been ejected from your Facebook group. This would not be particularly interesting – I really have no objection to closed groups – other than the fact that those who are members of your group have made a deity out of inclusion. Yet, here we are: I have included you and you have excluded me. You include everyone – so long as they agree with you.
So in other words, we’re not living up to your own caricature of us as idolizing inclusion for its own sake.
If only it were a caricature – but it isn’t.
Well it obviously is if you have been excluded from the group! If it were the case that we believed only in unlimited inclusion of everyone in everything with no other factors considered, then you would not have been. That you were excluded by definition demonstrates that there are limits to our supposed worship of inclusion. It’s more than a little disingenuous to complain out of both sides of your mouth, first that we don’t seem to care about anything but inclusion, and then again when we do. But of course that’s the whole point isn’t it? Sign up to a group whose express aims you clearly disagree with, see how long it takes to get the boot, and then crow about how “exclusive” those “inclusive” types are (leaping neatly over the numerous dis-analogies between “inclusion” in a closed Fb group and the Church Universal).
You have just made my point for me.
You value inclusion highly but only when it suits you; when it doesn’t, you exclude with the best.
And you remain cheerily oblivious to your hypocrisy.
Jon,
This isn’t particularly relevant to the discussion, other than it gives me another opportunity to be highly judgemental, but it occurred to me while reading your post that you write like an Anglican vicar: “safe space”; “self identified”; don’t use 25 words when 500 will do.
And I see I was right. Welcome to the blog – a place of tolerance and real inclusion.
Jon,
One final thought: When you say: doing all we can to help usher in the Kingdom of God. you seem to be making the basic theological error of immanentizing the eschaton. I expect it was just a momentary slip.
Hi David.
why does everything you write have a tone of judgment? I thought God was only allowed to pass judgment? Maybe you can take those pile of stones and get rid of them.
It must be genetic.
Or perhaps your are imagining it. After all, it’s only judgement in the sense you seem to be using it if I am making myself out to be better than everyone else – and really, I’m not. I freely admit I am a fallen sinner in dire need of forgiveness.
Hi David,
I fully support the views of the group but I too was disappointed that there wasn’t more discussion involved in the group until I read the description more carefully, as you did.
I think it is perfectly ok to create a group with the express purpose of planning how to bring one side of an argument to light in the same way that it is fine to have a group to plan an event. I would also not be surprised if people who had openly opposed this view were not allowed to take part in planning how to express it, just as in a group to plan an event I wouldn’t expect people who don’t think the event should help plan it.
I think you bring up a good point that there isn’t a group to openly discuss this issue and there probably should be, for the benefit of both sides of the argument. However this group was not created for that purpose so it shouldn’t be expected to serve it IMO.
Dude, you’ve been whinging for years, but this is the first post where the physical thrill you get from your trolling is so blatant. It’s both strange and endearing.
Vincent,
Responding with an amateur assessment of an opponent’s psychological state is a typical resort of a man with no coherent argument on the actual subject. Technically, it’s an example of Argumentum ad Hominem.
Cool.
You’ve heard my arguments. For years. They’re still here somewhere. But I’ll tell you, I truly believe that at this point, this blog has become the goal, not the tool.
Nobody is analyzing your psychological state. Your MO is just transparent. Your glee is palpable. You are not at all subtle in expressing the pleasure you take in goading sincere gay and lesbian Christians trying to find their place in the church. If you spent as much time praying for their salvation instead of dropping barbs from behind the craven veil of a keyboard perhaps your soul wouldn’t be so blackened.
How illuminating to see tolerant, loving, non-judgemental liberalism in action.
The case for changing the Marriage Canon has not been made. That’s because there is no case for the goodness and beauty of same-sex physical intimacy.
In my experience, intimacy requires vulnerability, and lots of it. Intimacy of any kind is beautiful when it is a shared, positive experience.
Jen, Does that include incest?
Your mind goes unprompted to really startling places.
If you accept the premise that “intimacy of any kind…” is good, then you have no reason to be startled at the logical conclusion prompted by that premise, namely, that “incest is good”.
If you’re a precocious twelve-year-old, think this is a game and are trying to score points for the hell of it, yes, absolutely.
Name calling actually weakens your arguments because it displays your lack of reasoned arguments. And DG picks up the point that I was making. It is obvious that the statement of “intimacy of any kind” is completely rooted in the devises and desires of this sinful world and devoid of Godly guidance.
“Intimacy of any kind” is not in fact what the post says. The post says “intimacy of any kind (…) when it is a shared, positive experience”. It is now incumbent upon you to argue that incest can be a “shared, positive experience”. You brought it up, you think it through.
Let me know.
When did ‘Facebook’ become a branch of The Vine, Jesus Christ and His Body, His Church: against which “the gates of hell shall not prevail” + Matthew 16:18?
As matters continue to unfold on this vexing question vexing Him and His Body,
‘Facebook’ is proving to be an inveterate foe of Christ and His Church…North Carolina, of late……
It is quite depressing to see there are that many people devoted to overturning Christ’s teachings on marriage and sexuality. I honestly do not understand how people can consciously ignore what Jesus and St. Paul had to say about these matters. The ACoC has obviously reached a point where it’s hip to ignore even the words of our Saviour.
I really believe the Baptismal covenant has been corrupted to the point where the whole “respecting people’s dignity” is now being used to include and overlook people’s sin and sinful ways. Jesus was not inclusive. He wasn’t inclusive of the Pharisees, the Sadducees or of people’s sin. The ACoC has obviously eliminated sin as something that is wrong and needs addressing.
The group says its members should pray to God for grace and wisdom on this issue, through the Holy Spirit. Why would the Holy Spirit provide guidance and wisdom that is contrary to what Jesus and the Apostles taught? The Holy Spirit is supposed to carry on the work of Jesus, not overthrow it.
This General Synod is really making me shake my head sadly.
A basic mistake behind all this is to think of Jesus as a kind of passive Barbie/Ken doll over whom one may drape the clothes of one’s own ideals. We all have to be careful of this, biased as we are towards the social forms in which we grew up.
St. Paul certainly was. He didn’t have a huge problem with slavery, I don’t think. Let’s just say he was really subtle on the issue.
“St. Paul certainly was. He didn’t have a huge problem with slavery, I don’t think.” Vincent, he had so huge a problem that he did and said all that was feasible about it. Opposing the institution publicly was not only criminal but absolutely useless. He exhorted a slave able to buy himself out to do so; he labelled the highly lucrative profession of slaving as gross sin; and in the letter to Philemon he enunciated principles which would undermine the institution from within. Can you think of any better example of his failing to be transformed by the renewing of his mind, as we are all instructed through him to be?
Oh come on. People opposed to slavery on this continent actually helped slaves escape, in the face of considerable peril. They haven’t been made into saints though. Hmm.
Whatever Paul thought of slavery, he certainly didn’t see it as the Moral Test of the Age.
I was replying to your statement about St. Paul’s view of slavery. St. Paul taught what even Joseph grasped centuries earlier, that even a slave has his area of freedom, within which he is responsible. When you understand the background of Our Lord’s public teaching, often delivered to people who were desperately poor, and St. Paul’s, many of his converts being wholly-owned slaves, the same point is being made: how to live as a free man before God within severe economic and political limits.
“Come on” to you! I do know the difference between a good argument and a bad one.
That’s really weak. You’re arguing that Paul was just an ordinary German who tutted at the policy of Jews being enslaved and killed, but knew he couldn’t do anything about it. Well there are Germans who did more than that, took great personal risks to save people from enslavement and death, and suffered for it.
We don’t necessarily condemn those who disapprove of current policy but don’t act — but we don’t extoll them for it either.
My narrow point is that Paul accepted slavery as a given that was not important enough truly to _act_ against.
Vincent Lauzon said:
‘Intimacy of any kind” is not in fact what the post says. The post says “intimacy of any kind (…) when it is a shared, positive experience”. It is now incumbent upon you to argue that incest can be a “shared, positive experience”.’
I have to think incest is a “shared experience”. Also, there are those who have more or less argued that it is a “positive experience”, in their view anyway. I think we would both agree incest it is not in the slightest a desirable state of affairs. However, is that not a subjective opinion?
I’m not actually discussing incest. Neither was Jen. If you have reasonable arguments against incest — I certainly do — why not keep them for that time when incest is actually the topic?
Slippery slope objections are just a recipe for doing nothing at all ever. Slippery slope was invoked to object to women’s suffrage, slave emancipation, miscegenation, and a host of other things that I would love for anyone here to argue against.
If I think that something is right, I shouldn’t withhold my approval because I fear that doing this right thing will at some point down the line lead to a debate about another thing that I think is wrong. Issues need to be discussed on their own terms. So if you have objections to changing the Marriage Canon, as is your prerogative, stick to actual arguments against same-sex marriage, and not against the phantom of an upcoming debate.
I reckon everyone on this thread would fall on the same side of an incest debate anyway!
Vincent,
It is not the slippery slope that causes an orthodox Christian to be against changing the marriage canon. It is the fact that same sex sexual relationships are called sin in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. And, that Jesus himself said in Matt. 19:4,
“Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be united to his wife..”
If you discount the Bible as the basis of the Church’s moral code, then what possible reason could you, or anyone, give for being against incest or say, beastiality if others find them beautiful and want to change the canons to include them?
“If you discount the Bible as the basis of the Church’s moral code, then what possible reason could you, or anyone, give for being against incest or say, be(a)stiality if others find them beautiful and want to change the canons to include them?”
There’s always the fact that no societies have ever generally approved of these aberrations including homosex, and when they have left written records of their disapproval have cited natural law, because they are all biologically bizarre. This holds whatever the uppercrust might have got up to at certain times and places, or a couple of modern states (or more accurately political parties seeking re-election!) have decided to institutionalise. But of course Jesus and the Bible do not teach anything in sex-ethics which falls below the world’s best standards.
Vincent,
This is not a slippery slope argument, it is an argumentum ad absurdum, a perfectly legitimate form of arguing, and one, for this case, that I have yet to see successfully refuted.
I really don’t think so. I just looked it up. Since “we’d have to accept incest” is not in fact a direct result or consequence of accepting same-sex marriage (the acceptance of incest is not contained in the acceptance of same-sex marriage), this argument is not a reductio ad absurdum.
It’s a slippery slope argument (not yours, Lois — AMP’s): if we accept same-sex marriage, it opens the door to incest. Indeed it rather seems to imply that whoever makes that argument is scared that they’ll _lose_ the debate against incest. Well, I’m not. I’ve no doubt _some_ people will argue for incest if the Marriage Canon is modified — bring it on, it will be our job to argue against them.
Hint: the argument “if we say yes to incest, people will want to marry their dog next” will not be the line to take. There are reasonable arguments against incest.
Of course, the fact that we’ve had same-sex marriage for ten years in this country and the sky has not fallen makes the case against changing the Canon purely theological.
It really is a reductio ad absurdum.
Premise: The requirements for two people to avail themselves of an Anglican Church of Canada marriage ceremony or a blessing of their union is that they are in an adult, monogamous, committed, lifelong relationship.
Premise: John and Brian are in an adult, monogamous, committed, lifelong relationship.
Conclusion: John and Brian should be permitted to marry or have their union blessed in an ACoC church.
John and Brian are brothers. Whoops.
God, we really are twelve. Right. Call it “adult, monogamous, committed and not between close family members”. Which we all know was implied anyway because this is a blog on the net and not an Asimov robot short story. I mean seriously, man? How can you look me in the eye and tell me you’re not doing this purely for the lulz?
Well, then, you have admitted that there is an additional criterion to those I stated above: not close relatives.
If you have no objection to granting one exclusion, why do you object to granting a second – same-sex couples?
I see we are back to my motives again; what do they have to do with the matter at hand?
Oh. Because I don’t equate homosexuality with incestuous longings. Or paedophilic ones.
I mean I can mess with man-and-a-woman in the same way — John and Jane love each other. They’re siblings. Whoops.
You are not making any sense, Vincent.
And there are unspoken criteria in the “man-and-a-woman” definition as well– they both have to be of age, for one thing.
So replacing “man and woman” with “persons” does not magically negate all these other criteria. As same-sex marriage being the law of the land these past ten years has demonstrated: incest has not been made legal in the meantime in Canada.
And, of course, I wasn’t actually discussing incest either.
Vincent,
Neither has anyone else.
Okay, let’s back up.
Same-sex marriage has been legal for a decade.
Has anyone been before the courts to use the arguments that made same-sex marriage legal to petition for incest to be made legal?
I’m not aware if anyone doing so. If they have, it has not worked.
My question is this: why would it be different if same-sex marriage were made “legal” in the Church by modifying the Marriage Canon?
Vincent,
The status quo in the Anglican church at present is that same-sex marriage is not permitted within the church neither – as is mentioned in the prayer book’s Table of Kindred and Affinity – are incestuous unions.
If you have an argument why this should change – either of the two – please make it.
As to what we have been discussing – to summarise: the argument that same-sex marriage proponents make for their case can equally well be applied to incestuous relationships, an application that you agree is absurd without saying why you think it is absurd. My contention is that it is the argument itself that is flawed, a contention you have not come within hailing distance of refuting.
Yes. As I write in my book Holy Homosex? https://www.amazon.ca/Holy-Homosex-Priscilla-D-M-Turner/dp/1482347865/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1460181934&sr=8-2&keywords=holy+homosex [p. 91 top] “As good a case, if not better, could be made for “loving, consensual” father-daughter incest. I cannot see that any conduct is improved or rendered acceptable by an undertaking to engage in it exclusively or for a lifetime.”
The simple fact of the matter is that literally all of the arguments in favour of homosexual marriage being ok are equally applicable to incest. I challenge anyone to present with even just one argument in favour of homosexual marriage that cannot be used to justify incest.
But have they been? Ten years of same-sex marriage in this country, friends. Incest still illegal, and I’m happy with that. Are _you_ making the case for incest if it’s that important to you?
Seriously, why haven’t the courts ordered the government to legalise incest? Are the arguments used to make same-sex legal different from the ones used to make Marriage Canon change? Are they more foolproof?
If so, let’s all take it as read that _those_ are the arguments behind changing the Marriage Canon, and we can all rest easy.
So, Vincent, this is your best shot at answering AMP’s challenge?
Ten years after the change that people here don’t want to make not leading to the further change that people here claim it would lead to? That’s a pretty good shot, I’d say.
I don’t understand how anyone can claim that making same-sex marriage legal in the Church would lead to incest being made legal when more than a decade of same-sex marriage in civil society — which according to this blog has lost its moral bearings — has not only not lead to incest being made legal, it hasn’t even led to people seriously talking about it.
Apart from this place, which is bizarrely obsessed with it. I have five children. I am not terribly comfortable with this conversation. It’s very, very strange to me.
But you aren’t getting that no one but you is talking about incest. We are arguing that, just as God never planned for incest when he designed creation, He also did not plan for same sex unions. As pointed out in this thread, they both go against natural and Biblical law.
That is what I (not so politely, I’m sorry) was asking you to refute.
Vincent,
You are still trying to refute the slippery slope argument, but as I have said ad nauseam, that isn’t the point. Here it is again, once more, with feeling:
The argument – call it Argument A – that justifies same-sex marriage can also be used to justify incest.
You and others who use Argument A to justify same-sex marriage still believe incest to be wrong.
Therefore, Argument A is a false argument since you reject its conclusion when applied to incest.
Therefore, Argument A is false when applied to same-sex marriage.
Was it argument A that was used to make same-sex marriage legal in Canada? Is it your contention that when someone shows up to the Supreme Court and says “Now that same-sex marriage has been made legal, incest needs to be made legal because argument A apply to both”, the Supreme Court will have to agree?
Regardless of you think I’m arguing, it would be interesting to hear why you believe that incest is not legal in Canada right now if one implies the other. ten years was long enough for someone else to see this and test it, surely?
The thing is, I reject the claim that incest can be loving and consensual. The power imbalance between the partners is built-in, the point is entirely sexual (since when there is no sex it’s not considered incest), and if the relationship fails, it’s much more difficult to walk away. It’s almost impossible to walk away from family when they beat you — why would it be easier if it just didn’t work out? Homosexuality is not based on a power imbalance, need not include sexual relations (just like any other couple that doesn’t have sex for a thousand reasons)and works the same as any other couple when it breaks down. I don,t actually see that it’s comparable at all, and the argument “loving and consensual” is unconvincing to me. And I’ll tell you, you all sound a tiny bit freaky for insisting that it can be.
Would you be comfortable with my sharing some quotes from this thread on FB?
Indeed, it suddenly occurs to me that, all through this word soup, no one here — apart from me — has explained why they think incest shouldn’t be made legal. I have begun to do so, showing why I think the arguments against incest are not applicable to homosexuality.
If the arguments against do not line up, I don’t see why any arguments for, that you guys claim do line up, should be any of my concern.
I know why I think incest is bad — and that’s enough for me to reject it, even if you can come up with arguments that bolster both same-sex marriage and incest. I don’t know why or if you do think incest is bad.
Vincent,
I suspect those of us not in favour of the church marrying same-sex couples are of that view because we are attempting to uphold Biblical principles. The same for incest.
The liberal strategy seems to be to concoct a contemporary morality that is able to rest comfortably in the bosom of the Zeitgeist.
Vincent,
The legality or otherwise of same-sex marriage or incest is beside the point; we are discussing whether the church should be marrying same-sex couples or not.
There are supposed experts who disagree with you; here, for example.
Besides, who are you to be imposing your version of morality on others?
Perhaps it is, but that puts you in league with all the freaky people on this blog who are unconvinced by the claims of loving and consensual relationships in the case of same-sex couples, doesn’t it?
Not particularly since you will probably cherry pick comments to make us all appear freaky, a prospect to which I am both resigned and indifferent; others may not feel the same, though.
Some you win, some you lose. That’s the way of the world. I still don’t know why you think incest is good or bad.
As I say, enjoy ANiC. I’m happy you’re happy there. 🙂
ETA: I don’t cherry pick. I’ll happily quote the entire thing. Indeed I’m more upset by that accusation than anything else on this blog ever!