Some thoughts on the Debate – 2 – The Glorification of Heterosexuality
The more observant of you will have noticed that one of the pictures on the header of this site (refresh a few times to see them change) is myself reading a book by Jonathan Mills, entitled “Love, Covenant and Meaning“. This book was recommended to me by Nathan, one of the commenters on the Covenant website.
Mills’ basic thesis is this – Western christianity has been diseased by the romantics, and that in that process we have lost sight of what marriage is all about. That change in perspective fundamentally damages our ethical basis and leads us not only into all kinds of faulty reasonings about sexual attraction, but also in our approach to how homosexual people should approach relationships.
Mills begins by explaining how before Rousseau, western civilization didn’t have romantic novels. Oh yes, we had novels with sex and adultery and other forms of misdemeanour, but they were all about men and women who were happily married, had a bit of a dalliance, and then came to their senses and returned to their spouses, or who didn’t return and everything was utterly shameful and disastrous. This was because until the romantics, western society viewed marriage as primarily a social construct, created for the benefit of men and women. You got married to have children. You got married to provide stability to society. You got married to provide stability to your wider family. It was a bonus if you actually fancied the person who you got married to, if you experienced love at first sight.
Mills argues that this was the Biblical picture. When you explore what the Scriptures say about marriage, they very rarely describe it in terms of romance. The New Testament never uses eros when describing love inside marriage. The focus is on learning to love someone and growing in that learning to love. Yes, sex and sexual attraction plays an important part (and is rather useful when trying to produce another generation of humans), but it was not the driving force behind the reason to get married – it simply came as part of the package.
The romantics changed all that. What the romantics did was elevate sexual desire and romantic attraction to the forefront of the reason to get married. Now you didn’t find a wife to make sure your family was well connected, now you found a wife because you fancied her.
This is, dare I say it, the guiding moral today. We enter relationships far less on the basis of whether, on consideration, they will be socially, intellectually and emotionally beneficial to us; we enter relationships often because we are hot for the person we are now connected to. Sex has been moved from that thing which seals the contract of marriage to that thing which has no relationship whatsoever with the contract of marriage. It is the mainstay of consideration around relationships, the one factor that is always present and assumed to be so. The moment one begins going out with someone, one is making judgements as to when sex will happen. The first night? After a few weeks? A few months? And why not make such considerations, because the reason you went out with them in the first place was because they were attractive.
And this way of thinking has become predominant in the church as well. Even in solidly conservative churches, the single men and women discuss who they fancy and why. We glorify heterosexual attraction and we celebrate it’s consummation in marriage. Boy meets girl, boy and girl are Christian so they heroically keep their pants on till the wedding night when boy and girl, finally married, now get to have it off and undertake the activity whose desire has been present in their relationship from the beginning, because he asked her out as he thought she was hot.
And while that may be a caricature, it’s a good caricature. We use the language of heterosexuality to describe our relationships says Mills, and then we justify eventual sexual union on the basis of “well I’m a boy who fancies her and she’s a girl who fancies me”. And this seems all very well, but then say Mills, then we meet our gay friend who says “well I’m a boy who fancies him and he’s a boy who fancies me”, and all of a sudden we declare that sexual desire isn’t the be all and end all of relationships, that while heterosexual desire is a justification for entering into a life-long union, homosexual desire can never be. And our gay friends look at us as though we’re bigoted homophobes who want the sauce for the goose but not for the gander.
And they’re right aren’t they?
But it doesn’t stop there argues Mills. Because we have made heterosexual desire of the leading, if not the prime factor for getting married, we then make the logical jump to assume that if one doesn’t have heterosexual desire one shouldn’t get married, or one should at least seek to nurture heterosexual desire before one does get married. “Gay men can’t get married” is what we implicitly say, they’re not capable of it because they aren’t attracted to women. “Well let us marry each other then”, comes the reply, and when conservatives respond with cries of “Oh no, that won’t do” then we are rightly criticised (again) for having one moral standard for ourselves (life-long union on the basis of sexual desire) and one for another (the denial of life-long union on the basis of sexual desire).
It wasn’t always like this argues Mills. In the past “homosexual” men have married women, loved them, raised families and generally got on fine. The reason they could do this was because they didn’t live in a society that obsessed about sexual identity. There wasn’t gay or straight, there were only men and women. Men got married to women and had children with them, because that’s what everybody did. They may not, from a 21st century perspective, have particularly fancied their wives, but then many of the “straight” men around them weren’t in that situation either. It’s not that they didn’t sexually desire them, it’s just that they didn’t obsess sexually about them day and night.
Here’s what Mills wants us to understand:
Of course, in defending the validity of marriage for “homosexuals”, I do not have in mind men who are having venery with men whilst also being married. That is as wrong as committing adultery with women. When I argue that “homosexuals” may marry, I have in mind men whose veneral desires remain entirely or mostly focussed on men yet who have never become involved in venery with other men, or who have succesfully settled (one day at a time) into refraining from such venery … I don’t think a man lacks that capacity for marriage and family life merely because his sexualness, if liberated, would drive him towards venery with all attractive men, rather than with all attractive women. Such a man has no reason to fear that the love and meaning he and his wife have in their marriage is actually bogus. And no one else has any reason or right to deem his marriage bogus either.
Mills’ argument is very simple – remove the consumation of specific sexual desire as a key driver for marriage, and you will destroy not only the sociological barriers to traditional marriage for men who are sexually attracted to other men, but also you will remove the argument from the pro-gay camp for recognising and accepting gay unions. This is because the glorification of heterosexual desire has led us down a road that has inadvertently justified many sexual relationships outside of marriage. Without the glorification of heterosexual desire, other sexual desires cannot necessarily be protected by the state in the way that heterosexual desire currently is. If marriage is about man and woman, not about heterosexual and heterosexual, then the need for legal guarantees over the union of homosexual and homosexual vanishes. Marriage, Mills argues, is not ultimately about hitching up with the person you fancy -Â it is about forming a union between a man and a woman that benefits them, their family (to be and already existing) and society.
That though may be the reason why many in the pro-gay camp will not like what Mills is saying, because he calls on them to lay down the rights that they assume come alongside the experiencing of certain emotions, and instead embrace the traditional forms of societal structure. Mills’ argument removes the attempt to justify any form of relationship based on sexual desire, as that isn’t what the Scripture says is at the heart of (intimate) relationships. Instead Mills (and Jesus?) calls on society to die to its own wants (sexual and otherwise) and to turn to God’s plan and society’s betterment.
I’m not sure many people (unlike your author) want to hear that.
It may have worked back then. How well it worked I wouldn’t know, since I wasn’t around then. That doesn’t mean that it would work now: the world has moved on. This sort of thing reminds me of older “traditionalist” Roman Catholics who remember fondly the days of the 1950s and early 1960s, when the churches were full for every Sunday Mass, standing room only. If once again every Mass were a Latin Tridentine Mass, they imagine, that “golden age” would return. It wouldn’t.
I really like this, but there is one possible logical gap. Doesn’t Paul write that it is better for a man to marry than to burn with sexual passion? Marriage was, to Paul at least, a way for people to express their sexual passions legitimately. By implication, Paul seems to say that if one does not have that sexual passion, then it is better to be celibate.
Since gay men and women certainly aren’t lacking in sexual passion, but at the same time their passions might not be fulfilled in a heterosexual marriage, doesn’t Mill’s argument implicitly state that celibacy would be the better option for gay men and women?
I personally think you’re on to something, and that the whole romantic, mushy way we see love and marriage is not the way that it was meant to be seen. However, again looking back to Paul, sexual passion was not seen as a mere “bonus.” It was seen as a reason to get married.
 I think sex may been more publicly identified as the sole factor in dating in said time period but not sure if this is reflective of a genuine change. Sexual intercourse certainly did not begin in 1963. Am glad that people who attend evangelical churches can now be honest about desire. Peter, do you go along with that idea that the Pill (odd as it sounds) was a big factor in current acceptance of homosexuality (as it made the idea of recreational sex the norm and not the exception)?
I am wondering how Mills understands:
1) Shakespeare — A major theme of the comedies is that the people who are supposed to wed are not attracted to each other, and often, are attracted to someone else.
2) The pre-revolutionary American colonies — There were legal rulings that indicate a woman was entitled to a sexual relationship within a marriage. One marriage was annulled because the man’s penis was too small and another, between to people in their 50’s, was annulled because the man was impotent.
I mean that those examples are pre-Romantic, so they don’t fit chronologically as I understand what you are conveying.
Peter,
I want to say a lot of things about what you write. However, time is limited at the moment. However, a couple of things:
Firstly, it seems to me that Mills sets us false dichotomies – romantic love v social contracts etc. Can they be separated in such a way? How significant is the documentary evidence to show that pre-Rousseau that relationships were as he describes? What psychological evidence does he have to support whether such a polarisation of desires is possible?
Secondly, the social contract understanding of relationships was absolutely terrible for women. It was an understanding of relationships that ultimately saw them as property. This is patriarchy at its worse. You need only to live in an Asian area, as I do, to see what it looks like in reality – burka, hijab, niqab etc.
Thirdly, the consummation of marriage is essential sacramentally for a marriage to have taken place. For some gay men, this is impossible! Even if it were possible, what an awful thing for a person to have to endure to ensure the validity of their marriage – intercourse devoid of eros.
Fourthly, when social contract understandings of marriage were dominant, the Church had very little to do with them – at best, there were prayers at the church door. Is this something that you are advocating? Why not? If we are essentially dealing with legal, and social bonding, why should the church get involved?
Fifthly, if, as you have always argued, marriage is an icon of God’s relationship to his people – how does a non-romantic, social contract understanding of marriage reflect this? Particularly, if that marriage has no romantic love in it whatsoever?
Pax, Mark.
Thirdly,
Winston,
You raise some good points. Let me try and engage with them:
i) I think the point Mills is making is that when we look at what Scripture has to say about marriage, it very rarely describes it in erotic language (though of course Song of Songs is a good exception to this). As Christians who take the revelation of God seriously, that should provoke us to consider whether the glorification of romance in modern society (and the church’s buying into that) is simply a passing fad and is in reality drawing us away from what marriage is actually about.
ii) Absolutely, but at the same time it was also sometimes absolutely brilliant and liberated women, providing them with value and respect due them. We can all point to cases which are the worst examples of social choices (for example, gay promiscuity which many of my conservative colleages seem to obsess about) but we can also point to the best examples (for example the “permanent, stable, faithful” relationships).
iii) Don’t knock it till you’ve tried it!! Seriously though, I think often the problem we have when we come to sex is that we view it in terms of what turns us on and arouses us, rather than viewing sex in terms of what can I give to my spouse. If we see sex only in terms of “will I get aroused” then we will not get what we aren’t expecting.
Would you like me to be a bit more explicit about my sex life to make my point?
iv) I think we need a real social revolution again in terms of how we view marriage. Our society is overly sexualised and this is the heart of our problems, not whether prayers are said over a marriage or not.
v) I think what Mills and I are arguing is that romantic love grows within marriage, but that it is not the predeterminate for marriage. I have some friends who have arranged marriages, and they love each other, even if at first they didn’t overly fancy each other. Why? Because they understand that marriage is less about sexual attraction and much more about the growing together in a relationship of mutual care and affection. In such a relationship sexual union grows and attraction to the whole person, sexual and otherwise, blossoms. Sexual attraction and sex itself becomes a part of the union, not the underpinning (which is how modern society approaches relationships).
While I do believe we attach WAY too much importance on sexual attraction as the major reason to connect with another person, his suggestion that gays just “lay down” their desires in order to pro-create for the good of society is so amazingly arrogant. What I think is more interesting is that it sounds like most of the nonsense that ex-gays and other evangelicals throw at us. Nice Try- No Cigar.
Jack,
I don’t think Mills is arguing that one ignores one’s sexual desires, I think Mills is arguing that one’s sexual desires do not dictate what your social arrangements should be.
Just got on from being away this weekend. Will reply to everybody else tomorrow (if I have a spare moment).
So, what is he saying that our social arrangement SHOULD be? Where does this leave gays and lesbians?
So I read this again. Mills is saying that its ok for gays and lesbians to marry opposite sex partners even though they they are same sex attracted? Really? Why would someone who is gay and lesbian want to do that? Oh wait thats right..it would be for the good of all society??!?!? Wow! I guess thats a useful approach for “ex-gays” to justify their reasons to marry an opposite sex partner even though they are same sex attracted-funny how that works out. :)
He’s saying that love isn’t just to do with sexual attraction, that who one lives with and makes a family with isn’t just down to one’s groin.
As long as you’re stuck in this “gay and straight” model of viewing humans then you’re not going to get the point he’s making, that specific sexual attraction is not the be all and end all of marriage.
Peter,
Why would I want to enter into a relationship with a woman? Surely you know that being gay is a LOT more than sexual attraction–it goes much deeper than that. I know you hate labels but honestly I think it fits me quite well. I cannot imagine wanting to enter into a marriage with someone I do not love. Love goes beyond just romantic feelings–its common interests, ideas and dreams for a common life together. As a gay man, to enter into a relationship with a woman would not make sense. I could not develop a relationship with her knowing that the romance would never happen. While I am glad that this works for you and maybe others, I don’t think it would work for many of us who are gay or lesbian. Sorry. I think Mills raises many good points though. Thanks for sharing the article.
Jack, speaking personally, I know what you mean. Certainly same-sex affections go deeper than simply sex. I think the question of “why” a gay man or woman would want to enter a heterosexual marriage is pretty self-evident, though. There are no secular reasons, only theological and deeply personal ones.
Theological in that the gay individual knows that same-sex behavior is prohibited by God, and thus is not pursuing it. Personal in that that same individual feels he or she is unable to cope with the challenges presented by lifelong celibacy. I personally think any gay Christian needs to consider celibacy first and foremost, and not simply abandon it because it is challenging for them, because it is challenging for everyone and it’s probably the least problematic option for people in our position.
But I do think that — for gay men and women wanting to enter heterosexual relationships — the attitude presented by Mills is not a bad one. It’s different from what the rest of society would do, but since we are different by nature so would our marriages be (which is not to say they are lesser).
Jay,
Thank your helping me point out that being gay is not about just the sexual. However, as a Gay Christian I will have to disagree with you that celibacy is the only option. As a Gay Christian man who is married to another Gay Christian man, I dont follow that line of theological thinking. I think if celibacy is the choice that you have made then I applaud you for your choice but I dont think that it is the only choice that God offers for Gay Christians. In fact I would have a lot more respect for you rather than the gay person who enters into a heterosexual marriage–that makes no sense to me. Sorry.
In fact I would have a lot more respect for you rather than the gay person who enters into a heterosexual marriage–that makes no sense to me. Sorry.
Why, though? I mean, I think celibacy is the primary option that gay Christians should consider if they want to live out a traditional (meaning Biblically-based) faith. It’s not the only option, because I think a heterosexual marriage is also possible.
It will probably look different from a heterosexual marriage. There might not be as much white-hot passion at first, and possibly never, but that does not mean there won’t be the things that define a marriage: mutual love and sacrifice for one another, intimate companionship and friendship, and yes, even sex. And if both husband and wife enter into the marriage consensually, with full knowledge of each other and the special challenges that such a marriage would entail (and a commitment to work through those challenges as husband and wife), then what would your problem be?
I can understand if you are against a gay person marrying just to please Mom and Dad and society at large. I am against that too, which is why, again, I promote celibacy. But if someone is A) unable to fulfill the commitments of celibacy in a healthy, Christ-centered manner and B) knows a person of the opposite sex who loves them and who is willing to fulfill all the duties that go along with marriage (and really knows of those duties before diving in), then what is so disrespectful about that? It’s just as much of a logical and thought-out choice as my celibacy is.
Jay,
As I have said before, I respect your opinion to think that celibacy is the only option other than entering into a heterosexual marriage– I guess thats where we disagree. I believe God does bless Same-Sex Marriages and so for me it is not an issue. I have been married to a man for 5 wonderful years that was blessed by our priest. I guess if you want to enter into a heterosexual marriage fully knowing you are not heterosexual and both people involved are ok with this then I say go for it! It seems a dangerous path to trod but if both the man and the woman are aware of what is going on beforehand then I would think it would be fine.
“A homosexual boy may be pressured by his family into marrying a suitable young woman in order to conform to the unwritten rules of their social class. Of course the pressure is subtle: there may be talk of his allowance, or of his future position in the family business. This situation undoubtedly occurs less often today than fifty years ago, but I have known several examples.
“The marriage is a great social event: a formal church wedding, a big reception in a luxury hotel. But the main character lives through all this like a march to the gallows. The bride does not suspect the problem the boy’s family has passed on to her. ‘Alone at last,’ the scene explodes. Although he may really like her, the young husband is incapable of the slightest physical desire for the woman who is there, wanting him. Yet it may take several years for the ‘marriage’ to become unbearable for one or the other of them; the wall of social convention is strong.â€
MARC ORAISON, The Homosexual Question (1977)
Even today, in our enlightened times, this sort of thing still sometimes happens. It seems that, if Mills had his way, it would once again become standard practice. I think that the best thing to do with Mr Mills is to leave him alone with his thoughts. No doubt those thoughts may thrill a few people, but, as Nicolas Boileau said, “Un sot trouve toujours un plus sot qui l’admire.â€
But that’s not what Mills is talking about. In fact, that’s what Mills very clearly is *not* advocating. He is not advocating lying about sexual attraction or conforming to a heterosexual norm. He is talking about engaging in an understanding of the purpose of marriage that is not constrained by the false paradigm of “gay” and “straight” being prescriptive labels.
One thing that occurred to me looking at Peter’s posting is that in human life ideals (whether God-given or not) are never completely realised and often degenerate into a mere travesty of what their apologists might hope for. I suspect that whether he realises it or not Mills is to some extent comparing the ideal of the older system with the downside of the new. In fact the older system (for want of a better term) at its best could indeed bring a much-needed calmer consideration into these matters to the benefit of all concerned, but all too often it degenerated into a cold calculation of self-interest in which families effectively bought and sold their junior members in return for money, land, prestige, power etc. without any thought of whether the marriage would be a good idea for the couple on a personal level. Indeed women tended to suffer from this more than men but no-one was really immune from the problem unless perhaps they happened to be the head of their family at the time when the marriage was being arranged (statistically unlikely in a context when family tended to mean extended family). The romantic ideal arose largely as a reaction against this sort of thing – it often happens in human history that people tend to lurch from one error into its opposite by a sort of over-correction. As I understand it the ideal behind the romantic view of things was not about ‘fancying’ people or legitimating one’s lust but the view that if you could find someone with whom you were really compatible (not just on a sexual level but in terms of the whole personality) the pairing would work much better. I dare say the romantics put too much faith in that sort of idea, but I doubt that it is fair to depict their attitude in the way Peter represents Mills as doing. Furthermore, I am not at all convinced that the level of sexual misdemeanours such as adultery and prostitution were significantly lower in the pre-romantic period – the books from or about that time all seem to be full of accounts of it.
This is a very fascinating argument…one I had never thought of before. Thanks for challenging us with this!
I think that the following pieces of advice are pertinent and wise:
Â
“People often ask, ‘Is it good for a homosexual man or woman to get married?’…. After twenty years of experience I tend to reply cautiously, ‘In general it doesn’t make things any better.’â€
MARC ORAISON, The Homosexual Question, 1977
Â
“1. On the one hand, a heterosexual person should almost never be advised to marry a homosexual person….
2. On the other hand one should almost never forbid a marriage between a heterosexual person and a homosexual one….
3. It should always be insisted that the homosexual person inform the heterosexual partner of his/her sexual inclination (or of his/her bi-sexuality). It is absolutely out of the question to absolve the homosexual person of the duty to disclose this….
4. It will almost always be necessary to rid both partners of any hope that the homosexual spouse will become heterosexual as a result of marriage and married life. One must guard against a childish optimism which likes to delude itself about the future difficulties likely to be encountered in such a union.â€
HERMAN VAN DE SPIJKER, Omotropia: un discorso diverso sull’omosessualità , 1983
Â
“This road [i.e. heterosexual marriage] is one from which the homosexual person is naturally precluded, and it is to be strongly advised against…. The opposite extreme is abstinence. However that is something so personal that it must never be imposed on anyone…. The most natural course for a homosexual person is to find a partner of the same orientation with whom to build a friendship in which sexuality has its part to play. I emphasize: sexuality included!â€
J.B.F. GOTTSCHALK in WITTE, GRUBBEN & GOTTSCHALK, Omosessualità e coscienza Cristiana, 1976
I recommended that Peter read this book because it questions so many of the foundational assumptions of the sexual identity and marriage debates.Â
I agree in principle with Jack’s sentiment that marriage between a homosexually-oriented or bisexually-oriented person and an exclusively heterosexually-oriented person is “a dangerous path to trod but if both the man and the woman are aware of what is going on beforehand then I would think it would be fine.” I would add, however, that awareness is not enough. Gene Robinson’s former wife was fully aware of his orientation before they married but that marriage did not survive. More than awareness, commitment to the lifelong and exclusive nature of marriage needs to be foundational. Only when both parties understand that marriage is a disciplined way of living wherein both have “forsaken all others” and that it truly is “till death do us part” will it be possible to deal in a healthy, non-repressive way with any sexual attractions to parties outside the marriage–regardless of gender or orientation–that may arise. I am sorry for Bp. Gene and his ex-wife that they either lacked this understanding or grew to believe that his sexual identity and the challenges this presented to their marriage ultimately trumped the life-long commitment demanded of those who have entered into the marriage covenant. I am sure that must have been very painful, and I do wonder whether Mills’ perspective might have helped them to a differently liberating understanding of the potentially postitive (if admitedly paradoxical) function of homosexual desire within marriage. I will not presume to make any judgments in that regard, however, since that is but one (albeit historically significant!) case of where the arrangement that Mills recommends was tested and found unsustainable. My point is simply that “awareness” is not enough if the commitment isn’t there.
For those who are in this sort of marriage and are committed, it is important that neither spouse fear, hate, or feel guilty about the same-sex oriented spouse’s attractions. If there is any danger that one or both spouses will be unfaithful in any way, then this needs to be addressed for what it is: a threat to the integrity of the marriage, not necessarily a “call” to leave it (though in my pastoral work this is often how people understandably rationalize this particular reason for divorcing).
And if one is single and considering marriage under these circumstances, I should think that both potential spouses would have a lot of work to do in order to make sure that they have truly discerned a call to marriage in the first place. In this regard, points #3 & #4 that William quoted from Van de Spijker above are particularly important, though I would add that while orientation may not be expected to change, the fact that two people have committed to each other in marriage will necessarily change the way each spouse views the nature and purpose of attraction and how each spouse deals with the fact that s/he is “off the market,” regardless of who s/he might happen to fancy.
Mills’ primary contribution to the debate, from my perspective, is that a call to marriage should not be predicated on orientation alone, although it is a significant factor. And he demolishes many heterosexist assumptions that glorify heterosexual attraction as entirely good, when in fact it is something that needs to be redeemed and ordered for the edification of the Church and the sanctification of human beings just like any other desire. All desires can become idolatrous, and I think Mills is quite right that our society has made heterosexual desire one of its favorite idols–and now is doing the same with homosexual desire. The question before us nowadays is: can homosexual attraction be redeemed and ordered just as Christians recognize that heterosexual desire can be? For those whose theological anthropology and indeed cosmology is based on the doctrine of gender complementarity, the answer appears to them to be self-evidently in the negative. Mills clearly believes this is not possible and proceeds from that premise. Whether or not one agrees with Mills on this point, however, his work is helpful for those gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who may feel a call to Christian marriage, which–understood correctly–is always radically counter-cultural, whether the spouses are both straight or not.
Thanks for that Nathan!!!
The battle has been won. Everybody now “knows” that Love is a “feeling”.Â
How could Love be a feeling?
Think about this:
1) If married love is supposed to be a reflection of God’s love for the church; then by today’s standards we are either in big trouble (could lose God’s affection at any time when He gets bored) or we severely misunderstand what Love is.
I dare say this is the enemy’s original goal; since God is Love.
2) This thought is not original to me:
The Bible seem to say you must love the one you marry; not marry the one you love. Nowhere does it state the latter.
That and the many times the Bible commands us to “love one another” or “love your neighbor as yourself”.
Or the people who pledge to “love, honor and cherish”?
How on earth could one command a feeling?
Love, therefore cannot be a feeling; it is, rather, a determination/commitment/attitude that is tied only in reverse to any feelings you may have. So people who determine to act as though they love someone will find pretty soon that the feelings follow the actions, and not the other way around.
And I see Peter’s talk about sex being what you can give over what you can get flew over the whole conversation.
But I think that the ideal has been so obscured by popular notions over the years, that much like your talk about gay/straight ontology; this one may not fly either.
Peter, I’m reminded of something that Episcopal Bishop FitzSimons Allison alluded to in The Cruelty of Heresy, the suggestion by Denis de Rougement in Love in the Western World that the tradition of romantic love is in part a disguise for the suppressed Albigensian form of Gnosticism.
Nathan’s explanation sounds quite helpful. Thanks for an interesting discussion.
Thanks Jon. You’re right, some people are so stuck in mindsets (gay/straight, romantic love) that when we talk about operating in different paradigms it simply passes them by. They just don’t get what we’re talking about.
You’re absolutely right about that, Peter. It does pass them by, and they don’t get what you’re talking about. This may just conceivably be because the “different paradigmâ€, even if one has the patience and mental acuity to appreciate it, and no matter how intellectually fascinating it may (or may not) be, has little or no practical, discernible relevance to real life as most real people live it. Does this Mills bloke really think that his paradigm has any chance of turning the clock back? Some hope!
I don’t think Mills’ intent is to turn the clock back so much as it is to reassure people with some degree of same-sex attraction that their orientation is not an a priori disqualification from marrying a spouse of the opposite sex, nor any guarantor that any such marriage will necessarily be unhappy. Such marriages are only guaranteed to be unhappy if the lesbigay spouse is dishonest with his/her spouse (and/or him/herself) on any level, if the lesbigay spouse allows the attractions to lead to behaviors inappropriate to the Christian marriage covenant (porn, prostitution, adultery, etc.), or if the straight(er) spouse is uncomfortable with or unaccepting of the fact of the lesbigay spouse’s orientation. Where there is full disclosure, full acceptance and love of each other for who each person is, and full commitment to living into the marriage covenant in its demand of radical exclusive fidelity to each other, the odds of sexual orientation playing a disruptive role in the relationship diminishes significantly, and the spouses are free within the “safe space” (or “holy ground”) of the covenant to grow together in love and faithfulness to each other and to God.
When people who are lesbigay and married learn this, then the false dichotomy between self-acceptance (understood as embracing and living out one’s same-sex attractions) and fidelity to one’s spouse is revealed for what it is: a sham. Self-acceptance and fidelity are both possible if both spouses are committed in real love to each other, and one’s erotic proclivities become only just as dangerous as a straight guy oggling some chick in a bikini on a beach while his wife reads a novel in blissful ignorance on the towel next to him–i.e., only threatening to the marriage if the guy decides as a result of that arousal to look at porn, pursue the bikini girl, or be unfaithful in other ways. Â
In short, Mills’ work is good news because it proclaims that lesbigay folk have even more choices available to them than those proclaimed by the LGBT liberation movement, and that living a life of integrity and self-acceptance as a person with same-sex attractions is not inconsistent with having a happy marriage. That said, Mills does not address the lesbigay person who believes s/he is called to a lifelong exclusive relationship with someone of the same sex, because his premises exclude that as a legitimate Christian choice. So his work does not directly address the debate over whether there should be same-sex marriage or not. He simply reassures those lesbigay people who want to be (or stay) married that this is, indeed, possible without betraying or repressing part of who one experiences oneself to be.Â
Just briefly: like the points made by Winston and Nathan H. Interesting stuff Peter – thanks for the link to Google books so that one can read the first 30 pages of Mills’s text. Hope I don’t sound too much like a creep if I say I prefer your take on his book, to the book itself (without entirely agreeing with you, quelle surprise).
Â
Am the wrong gender to make this point, but would be interested to hear some women’s views on this – it may be too harsh, judging Mills’s book on the basis of only 30 pages, but the lack of any woman’s viewpoint looks to me like the biggest gap in his argument. Seems ironic to me that he’s arguing (in part) for two-sex marriages for all, yet his text seems to give a strictly male-only view. Also might be worth adding that Jeremy Marks has argued against gay men marrying women, on the basis of the experience of others he’s observed – haven’t got his book to hand so can’t quote just now but I think one reason was the potential unhappiness of the woman at being with a man who doesn’t passionately desire her (hope that’s a fair representation). But anyhow, are there any women who are /have been in the set-up Mills advocates, who could post on this?
Also, would be interesting to know if Mills identifies as straight / gay / post-gay etc – just wondering if he is advocating something he himself has done or would do, or tending towards “binding heavy burdens on other people’s backs, and not lifting a finger to help”…? Maybe that’s a bit harsh again.
in friendship, Blair
Yes, the book is focused pretty exclusively on male sexuality, though interestingly I first came across it by way of a lesbian/bisexual who was partnered with a woman at the time but is now married to a man.Â
As far as “the potential unhappiness of the woman at being with a man who doesn’t passionately desire her” is concerned, this is certainly an issue often with women whose husbands later “come out” to them, but not so much with women who enter marriages of this type with their eyes open. For the latter, it all boils down to:  What sort of love is one looking for? Many women I know would trade hot sex for gentleness and lasting friendship–and who says hot sex isn’t possible with differently oriented partners?Â
The point is not what the dominant culture expects that people should want out of a nuptial relationship, but what each spouse needs within the context of that relationship. Marks’ argument is entirely uncompelling except in those instances where the issue is one of the woman’s disappointment over her needs not being met then being blamed on the same-sex desires of her husband. And in that case, the pastoral task is to ask: Is it the desires that are leading to alienation, or is it the way the husband is dealing with them, or is it that they are a convenient scapegoat for other issues that stand in the way of genuine intimacy?Â
Feeling loved is what sustains us. Whether that includes “passionate desire,” and to what degree it includes it, is entirely a subjective matter of the people in the relationship, and cannot be used as an objective criterion for a priori exclusion of same-sex attracted people from traditional Christian marriage. Marks’ argument is a red herring in this regard (though I hope I have sufficiently validated his hypothetical concern in the subjective context).
http://www.communioninconflict.blogspot.com
Hi again,
as I say, I hope I’ve fairly represented Jeremy Marks – can’t really try and defend them or argue the point much further as I don’t have his book with me at the moment. Must say I found your phrase “a priori exclusion of same-sex attracted people from traditional Christian marriage” a bit odd – were you thinking of Jeremy Marks when writing that? If so as far as I recall his argument is based on experience, not an a priori. What examples of such an a priori exclusion could you cite? It’s just that one might think that same-sex attracted people wouldn’t want to marry someone of the opposite sex, as Jack said, not that they (we) are somehow excluded from this.
in friendship, Blair
PS Nathan if you’re willing to say, are you yourself same-sex attracted (or however you’d prefer to phrase it)?
Blair
Surely you aren’t seriously suggesting, Nathan, that Mills’s work is needed to inform “lesbigay folk†that they “have even more choices available to them than those proclaimed by the LGBT liberation movementâ€? (In any case there is no such thing as a monolithic LGBT liberation movement which specifies ex cathedra what the only permissible choices are.) The question is whether a conventional heterosexual marriage is a wise choice for LGBT people. While I would agree with Fr Marc Oraison when he wrote that “it would be presumptuous to think we can come up with any definitive answerâ€, my view is that in general it is not a wise one.
No, the a priori comment was not contra Marks but pro Mills, i.e., summarizing that Mills’ point is that there is nothing a priori about sexual orientation that logically determines whether one ought to marry or not. For example, straight folk might be called to monastic celibacy and still have very strong attractions to the opposite sex.  Among the monks and nuns I know well, I don’t think I know anyone who is asexual. And people may have a default call to remain single and chaste simply because they have not found anyone to marry.
And then there are those who, like Augustine of Hippo, pray “God, make me chaste, but not yet!”
The argument for a priori exclusion grounded in orientation that I’ve heard goes something like this: If you have predominant or exclusively same-sex attractions, it would be against your nature to marry someone of the opposite sex. Like Peter, I believe such an argument conceives of sexual orientation as fixed and static, or at least fixed and static enough that it can be used as a criterion for whether to marry (or remain married). Even if it were fixed and static, I agree with Mills that as creatures with some measure of (albeit fallen) free will, we may be given the grace to discern what God thinks is best for us, and sometimes that discernment may run counter to our established (and even unchangeable/immutable) identities. I agree with Mills and Peter that a Christian’s primary organizing and driving orientation and identity is in Christ, and that this puts all other orientations and identities in proper perspective.Â
Where Mills and Peter and I part ways is that I do not believe that in order to have one’s identity in Christ, one must accept the truth of the doctrine of gender complementarity, though I concede that much of Scripture and the Christian tradition takes this doctrine as a foundational premise and proceeds from there. I am of the opinion that this doctrine is fair game in the debate over the acceptability (or not) of same-sex marriage. It is not a sacred cow in my book, though if I understand Peter (and Mills) correctly, it is central to their theological anthropology and indeed cosmology. Since a liberal critique of traditional Christianity accuses it of the “sin of heterosexism,” I ask: Is Christianity inherently and necessarily and fundamentally heterosexist? If so, then heterosexism cannot be a sin, and is in fact an immutable good (as opposed to a culturally-conditioned outlook). But if heterosexism is not necessary to the Gospel, then that opens the same-sex marriage can of worms and one must take the testimony of people who claim to be in such relationships seriously and examine such relationships within the context of the Church to determine whether they have the same capacity for holiness and edification as traditional Christian marriage is currently recognized as possessing. Â
But your’re quite right, Blair, that there’s also no reason why any given lesbigay person would want to marry someone of the opposite sex. From my perspective, traditional Christian marriage is a call that God extends to two people on a couple-by-couple basis, and just as God calls ridiculously unreliable and unqualified people like Moses the stuttering murderer or Abraham and Sarah the childless couple or Jacob the scheming cheat or Jonah the xenophobe or Mary the unwed virgin or Peter the impetuous hothead, God calls equally unreliable and unqualified people, gay, straight, bi and everything else, into traditional Christian marriage as a way of sanctifying the couple (and their children) in holiness and edifying the Church. For a more in-depth perspective on this, see my essay on Nature and Discernment, which Peter has taken issue with because it does not assume the truth (or falsity, I might add) of the doctrine of gender complimentarity.Â
On the subject of self-disclosure, I will tell you this: I am an Episcopal priest in an ideologically mixed congregation with an active ministry as a counselor, spiritual director, and confessor. Even though I’m only thirty-five years old, I’ve heard it all and companioned people who are in practically every conceivable relational configuration that can be found in my corner of Anglican Land (i.e., I don’t see as many polygamists as I do “serial monogamists” and polyamorous people, not to mention your garden-variety partnered lesbigays, married transexuals, bisexual/straight couples, and angst-ridden singles of every orientation). I am happily married with a daughter.  Given my vocation, public forums on the Internet are not appropriate places for further self-disclosure. I hope you understand.
Hi William,
Certainly, there’s no monolithic LGBT liberation movement (which is why I didn’t capitalize the l and the m) any more than I believe in A Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. What one does tend to hear, however, is that the option that Mills advocates as reasonable under certain circumstances (which I hope I have been clear about above) is too unwise or dangerous to be taken seriously.Â
I think it eminently unwise for someone who does not believe him or herself to be called to marriage to marry, particularly if that person is dealing with questions of sexual identity. But I also think it eminently unwise for someone who has entered into the Christian marriage covenant to believe that it may be dissolved merely on the basis of one’s attractions. When this is the issue, affectivity and ontology, nature and identity are often unhelpfully confused, and the primary Christian values of commitment and fidelity are obfuscated as a result.Â
When we are married, we are no longer our own person, whatever our orientation may be. And even single, if you are a Christian, “You have been bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body” (I Cor. 6:20). What we do with our bodies is not exclusively ours to determine, nor are our choices determined by our identities apart from Christ.  (And as I’ve said, none of this addresses the central debate over whether it is possible for two gay people to glorify God with their bodies within a lifelong committed covenantal relationship that could only be termed “marriage” in my book.  I’m simply saying there’s nothing on the face of it to rule out a lesbigay person glorifying God with his/her body and a straight person’s within the marriage covenant, though I grant that this is on the face of it a counter-intuitive proposition.)Â
In general, I take a professionally neutral position: whether it is unwise or not depends upon the people considering the action. I believe Fr. Oraison’s position is biased by liberal ideology, just as I believe that Mills’ position on the only acceptable alternatives to traditional marriage is biased by conservative ideology. His position on the neutrality of orientation and traditional marriage, however, is quite solid, even if I disagree with some of his premises. But then, I have my biases, too! Which is why I try to maintain professional neutrality when someone comes to me trying to discern on this issue (as people have)–it’s not what I believe is right that I am hoping that person will discover and apply, but what that person discerns is God’s will, using Scripture and the tradition of the Church responsibly and with full accountability for the consequences of one’s good faith choices. I have counseled people who have made choices that I believe are wrong and hurtful, and I am usually up front about my biases with them within a safe space where they understand that I do not regard my biases as the Word of God. My job is not to pre-empt discernment by laying down an ideologically-based principle such as “in general it is unwise” or by quoting statistics at people (e.g., Did you know that 50% of all marriages end in divorce? Don’t you therefore think that in general marrying is risky and unwise?). Rather, I ask, “In general, what do you regard as unwise…and why?” And then we work from where that person is, not where I am. That’s the theory, at least. I’m sure it’s never that tidy in practice…in general, that is.