Sunday, August 4, 2013

Why I'm Not an Advocate of "Traditional" Marriage

So.  I don't often post about things that are completely unrelated to books and movies and general-life-happenings on here. That is, Yet Another Period Drama Blog isn't the place to visit if you want social commentary on current events.  However, I've been thinking a lot lately about a particular subject that does fit into the "current events" genre, and that combined with a question I got from a reader a couple of weeks ago inspired me to write this post.  Not interested? Don't read it.  You've been warned.

{And another note... I shall be as discreet as I can possibly be in this post while dealing with a rather delicate topic, but even so, I recommend that younger readers skip this post.  Or, if you're quite curious as to what it contains, ask a parent to read it first and determine if it's appropriate for you.  M'kay? I do have your best interests at heart, I promise.  I'm not just being mean and telling you you're too young-- only trying to protect you.  :D}

It would probably be easiest to start this by quoting the comment that made me decide to write this post.  I recently received a comment from an anonymous European reader who said, "I have been following your blog for quite some time, and I have noticed that you and many of your blogger friends are extremely religious. While I don't think that that's a bad thing at all, it definitely is a bit strange for me, as I am European and have never met anyone in real life who is even near as religious as you are.
Now basically what I wanted to ask is how your views are on the subject of homosexuality. Do pairings like Enjolras/R disgust you/make you think less of the author/etc...? I am just asking because I don't know any other religious person I could ask."

Sooooo... let's take this step-by-step.

First of all, with no disrespect intended to the young lady who wrote the comment in question, I don't consider myself to be a religious person.  Religion, in my mind, is an adherence to some form of belief that requires a person to follow a list of rules and/or customs in hope of an eternal reward.  It's a works-centered concept that focuses on man, not God.  (And I'm not saying calling someone religious is a sin or anything, nor am I annoyed at anyone who uses the word to describe me.  Don't take this the wrong way. :D) Rather than calling myself "religious," I identify myself as a Christian: a follower of Christ, saved by grace through faith in Jesus' atoning death for me.

I don't think I've ever concisely outlined my statement of faith here on this blog, so perhaps this would be a good time to do so.  In brief--

~I was born into this world a sinner in need of salvation, and as such cannot possibly get to heaven on my own-- my soul is flawed and anything "good" I do in my own strength cannot ever be pleasing to God.
~I can never do enough "good works" here on earth to earn a place in heaven.
~God, the creator of the universe, is righteous in condemning all sinners to hell (that includes me. And you.)  However, God has provided a perfect Righteousness in Jesus Christ to save His people.
~God sent His one beloved Son (who is fully God and fully man) to the earth, born of a virgin, to die a painful death in our place. God is love, but God is also justice, and in order for justice to be served, blood had to be shed. Someone had to pay the penalty, and because God is love, He sent His Son to pay that price--in our place. "Without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin."
~Salvation is by grace alone, through faith given by the Holy Spirit.
~All those whose hearts have been turned to God are fully righteous in His sight. When He looks at His saved people, He sees them through Jesus' robe of righteousness. Those who are redeemed are saved eternally, and when they die will go to be with God in heaven forever.
~All of the above can be found in the Bible, which is the infallible Word of God, written by men who were divinely inspired by God Himself.  Every bit of it is true, and that includes the parts about creation, the flood and the tower of Babel.

(And that was a really, really brief summary.  If you want more details or have questions, don't be shy.  Leave a comment and ask, and I'd be happy to elaborate!  If you don't know what "elaborate" means, ask Melody.)

Now, where were we.

Right.  The question about... erm... the whole "marriage equality" issue.  Am I using too many quotation marks in this post?  I feel like I am.  I have a friend who gets excessively annoyed over unnecessary quotation marks and is skilled in pointing out instances (like this) of quotation mark misuse.  Hence, I'm rather careful about using quotation marks.  This post, however, has already failed in that respect.  Eh, whatever, may as well be hung for a "sheep" as a "lamb."

Shall we do a statement of faith in bullet points for this subject, too?  (Only they're not really bullet points, are they... more like little squiggly points.  Which are cuter than bullets.  Also less harmful.)  In brief--

~I believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman for life.
~I believe that physical intimacy between two people should exist only in marriage and that any violations of the seventh commandment.  (I'm being discreet here, and I'll ask that if you choose to comment on this post, you keep your comments discreet as well.  If you're interested in discussing this topic, you're obviously old enough to understand what we're talking about without having to be explicit.  Thanks!)
~I believe in biblical marriage, not "traditional" marriage.

....Aaaaaand the title of this post finally makes sense.

See, my reasons for strongly disagreeing with the idea of same-sex marriage don't stem from an outraged sense of propriety or a desire to take America back to the good old days when people didn't talk about such things.  (Much as I think it might be fun to live in the 1950's when clothes were cuter and movies were cleaner, I don't labor under any delusions that life was picture-perfect back then, or indeed at any time in history.)  My reasons for believing that it is morally wrong stem from my belief that God's Word is infallible, and that God's Word clearly forbids the-thing-that's-making-such-a-brouhaha-in-the-news-of-late.

Because this isn't about tradition.  It's about the fact that God says no.  And God's commands trump man's customs any day.  We're treading dangerous water when we start backing our arguments with, "but it's tradition!"  Look, are we teaching for doctrines the commandments of men or of God?  If we're basing our beliefs on a convention observed by humans for centuries, then we really don't have much to stand on.  For centuries it was generally believed that the earth was flat, or maybe pear-shaped, or maybe a floating purple people eater.  (Hey, there COULD have been someone who believed the earth was actually a floating purple people eater.  There's a nutcase in every generation, and often more than one.)  Does that make it true?  Nope.  Now, I'm not saying that just because something's traditional, it must therefore be unfounded and wrong.  Not at all.  I'm only saying that we have to have a lot more basis than mere custom if we're going to take a stand.

In case you're wondering where I'm getting my basis for advocating one-man-one-woman-no-exceptions, let's take a look at what the Bible says.  (Remember, Acts 17 tells us that the Bereans were "more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.")  Many people cite Leviticus 18:22 as the be-all, end-all command against homosexuality--however, many people also disagree with the usage of this passage because it's part of Old Testament law.  While it's true that we are no longer bound to the Old Testament civil laws now that Christ has fulfilled the law, if something is commanded in the Old Testament and then reiterated in the New, you can be pretty sure that it still holds.  I'll wait while you go look up Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9.

Some would protest that Jesus never actually addressed this topic and therefore if He didn't find it offensive, we shouldn't either.  But Paul the apostle clearly denounces this practice as unmitigated sin in Romans 1, and lists this sin alongside idolatry and adultery in 1 Corinthians 6.  Sure, Paul isn't Jesus, but Paul was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who is God.  (See 2 Timothy 3:16--
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.") This is what God says, not what Paul says.

Really, I think this all comes down to a simple question.  Where do you put your trust?  Is it in the ideas  of men or in the commands of God?  Because if you frankly don't believe that the Bible is true and that it is the standard by which we should live, then you and I are talking at cross-purposes and will not be able to come to a conclusion.  If I believe one thing and you believe another, we can argue until we're blue in the face (and trust me, I can hold an argument for a loooooooong time) and still never change the mind of the other.

I can't change your mind by writing a blog post.  I can't make you believe what the Bible says; only God can do that.  Sure, He might choose to use me or any other human being as His instrument in turning you to Him, but it would still be all His work and His alone.  Why?  Because God is all-powerful.   He is God.  "And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?"  (Daniel 4:35)

And those are my long-winded thoughts on a sensitive and controversial topic and I hope I didn't bore anyone.  I can't truthfully say that I hope I didn't offend anyone, because a) I KNOW someone, somewhere is going to be offended by this post and I can only pray that I'll have the grace to respond in the right way if a nasty comment shows up and b) because my motive in writing this isn't to avoid offending people.  Obviously I'm not trying to offend anyone, but if taking a stand for what I believe in offends someone, I'll just have to take the consequences.  I've tried to be courteous and gracious in writing this post and I hope I succeeded... I definitely don't want to give anyone the impression of hatred or small-mindedness, because that would be completely contrary to the kind of testimony a Christian is supposed to have.  (Which is why the very idea of protesting at funerals and wearing t-shirts that say "God Hates Such-and-such" is absolutely sad and pathetic.  That is not speaking the truth in love, folks.  That's just despicable.)

Oh, and to answer another aspect of the question at the beginning of the post-- I'm not sure if "disgusted" is the word I'd use when it comes to people pairing Enjolras and Grantaire (that's what E/R means for all you non-Mizzers), but I certainly don't condone it in any way.  Does it make me think less of the person promoting that kind of thing?  Um... hard call.  It definitely doesn't impress me favorably--let's just put it that way.  I try to avoid all that as much as possible and I definitely don't think that's what Victor Hugo had in mind when he wrote about those characters.  I'd be happy to write a post on Grantaire's (extremely complex) character at some point if anyone's interested... and if anyone's also interested in a post on Enjolras, I might possibly be persuaded into doing that too.  If you twist my arm.

So... we've reached the end!  Thank you right now for bearing with me through this excessively wordy post and thank you in advance for not reporting this post to the Society for the Prevention of Unnecessary Quotation Marks.  Y'all are the best.


Alexandra said...

You go, girl. Awesome post.

And I know how much you would HATE writing a post on The Guy We All Hate SOOOOOOOOOOOO MUCH aka Enjo. So, I won't ask you to. Because it would just mean you'd have to dig up allll the Aaron Tveit pics. And I know how much you'd hate that, and how much I'd hate having to look through all of them. So I won't ask.

Seriously, great job. I have a huuuuge burden for homosexuals after meeting/working with some (in the hobby I'm pursuing you pretty much can't avoid it :/), but loving them as people doesn't mean I have to condone what they do (like love the sinner, hate the sin). You presented your thoughts clearly and kindly and yet said what needed to be said. Bravo.

Kathryn said...

This is an EXCELLENT post! The whole thing is excellent, especially the "boiled-down" gospel message. (See, I use quotation marks too!)

I've always said that I believe in "traditional" marriage, defined as one man and one woman, but I think that your definition of marriage as biblical is so much better and stronger. I will definitely be referring others to this post.

Thank you for your strong testimony for Christ.

Jane B said...

Amen! That's all so true and you've articulated this tricky subject well!

Indigo Montoya said...

You do a wonderful job of explaining the difference between being "saved by works" and being "saved by grace". I just want to add that although most of Europe is definitely more secular than America that there are still many Christians here. We do exist!
: D

Anne-girl said...

Please do write a post on R. I would really like to read it. One on Enjolras wouldn't be to displeasing either. Good job on taking a stand without being to judgmental {as I would have probably ended up being by accident}.

Anonymous said...

Bravo, my Chauvie. BRAVO. Of course you know that I agree with everything you said, so there's really not much else for me to say. ;)

Anonymous said...


*twists Amy's arm*

; )


Sarah Elizabeth said...

Amen, Miss Dashwood, amen! I admit, your title had me VERY worried, in that I am a supporter of "traditional" marriage in the sense that it is one-man-one-woman-no-exceptions. However, I love that you say Biblical marriage, and will now think of this every time the subject is approached. Well done, my friend! Thank you for your boldness to stand up for the faith in this modern world of internet. I love your blog and support you all the way!

Well done!

Analiese said...

Thank you so much for the encouraging post!! I really respect you for having the guts to write about this sort of thing, by the way. ;) This is a difficult subject to talk about and you really handled it well - sticking the salvation-message-in-a-nutshell in was a great idea!

Maribeth B said...

Bless this post! I must confess, when I saw the title my first reaction was, "WHAT?!" But then I got to reading it and was cheering you on. Thank you for being so honest, kind, and yet courageous and uncompromising :D

Hamlette said...

Well said! ::Claps:: I agree whole-heartedly.

(And I'd read anything you had to say about any Les Mis character.)

Kellie said...

Thank you, Amy! It's so encouraging to read a well-thought-out articulation on any subject, but you've expressed yourself (and the rest of us:) with grace and authority on this, a very important one.

Anonymous said...

The post title had my sister and me (is it "me" or "I"?) worried, and my sister still hasn't read this, but I agree with everything you said. Thank you for having the courage to stand up for your beliefs!

(And saying you can hold an argument for a loooooooong time made me laugh. :) )

- Beth March

Hayden said...


I LOVED how you distinguished between biblical marriage and "traditional" marriage...I had never thought about it that way before.

Mykaela said...

I am behind you 100% Sister! Great job on saying this in a very kind and sensitive manner. This is obviously an extremely difficult but also an incredibly important topic. I was so interested in your "statement of faith" (yes, I just used quotation marks haha! :) I just wanted to tell you that I am on the same page with you on every squiggly point in there! So fun to find someone else who believes the same as I do! :) So anyway, good job, and I will be praying that no one is offended or nasty about your post, because there was absolutely nothing offensive about it. God Bless!

Amy Wegner said...

My goodness! You scared me when I saw the title! :D I agree with you all the way! I also liked what Alexandra said in her comment about "love the person, hate the sin". I have a hard time feeling love toward a person like that... I allow my flesh to get in the way of the Spirit!


Lucy said...

I'm kind of in two minds about writing this comment because 1. I've never commented on your blog before so I feel like a bit of an outsider and 2. I'm most definitely in the minority view point on your blog. However, having seen all the other comments I guess I just wanted to speak up in support of 'the other side' :) (Like you I'm not doing this to cause an argument or anything, just stating another view point :) )... I don't know if it's the different culture here in England where Christianity is less encouraged, more just there, but I know that where I'm from the majority of people are in favour of equal marriage (mostly people over the age of about 40 would say otherwise and if anyone were to oppose it in class most people would argue and disagree with them)... I guess the view is that we are all human, no matter what the Bible says (it was written a long time ago, after all) and if God is benevolent, and so presumably in favour of any kind of love, why shouldn't love between any two humans just be that, love. I guess I've just always been of the opinion that love of any kind should be celebrated, no matter who that is between and it makes no difference what the sexes of those two people are... I think song writer Scott Alan can explain this better than me and if you haven't heard it please look up 'Again' written by him and sung by the gorgeous Hadley Fraser (:D), seriously it's beautiful, you won't regret it :) Alan is homosexual but I just think that song shows so well that what I might feel for a man, he also feels and nothing else should contaminate that.... I've just realised how long this comment is (:/ sorry about that!!) and I'm not sure if you'll even see this, but yeah, if you were looking for other opinions (which I'm actually pretty sure you weren't :L) this is my opinion and the opinion of many of those around me... I guess ultimately it's a question of what you were brought up to believe... if you read this far, thank you!! and I'll shut up now :) Thanks for the really interesting post though and I respect you a lot for putting your views out there :)

Elizabeth said...

First off lovely post. I really enjoyed reading your post. It was a thoughtful post. I also really appreciate how you know your faith.

I do not condone same-sex marriage. However I am for equal rights for gays. I feel that we should love them. And like several people above have said loving them does not mean that you condone their lifestyle.

Banríon An Gheimhridh said...

This is such a sensitive and emotional topic. You expressed your view very elegantly and respectfully and I admire you for that.

I understand that you believe these aforementioned romantic relationships to be a sin. My question for your side of the debate is: usually sin is something that is a choice and can be desisted at will. As this particular behavior has been practiced in ancient times, from the time of Moses down through history, and if it turns out to be the case, that the romantic feelings of these people are not something they can change, but are an integral part of their nature, should we not accept them as equal human beings, so that we don’t encourage sin in so many other areas? We mustn’t be so sure that we can see into the innermost person, to declare so unequivocally that their romantic impulses are something we should be meddling with. Imagine the psychological pain and contortions of people who are taught that their very nature is wrong and that they must go through therapy to change it. I’m talking partly about self–righteousness, and partly about being realistic. When we live righteous lives ourselves, it’s so easy to take part in pride and to begin to look down on other people, when we should be concentrating on our own capacity for sin.

I've observed a ricochet effect, an array of hurtful effects that result, when society refuses to come to grips with the reality of this different romantic culture. For instance, what about the sin that occurs when gay men hide behind innocent women in a sham marriage? The hurt and humiliation those women have endured shouldn’t be allowed to continue. They deserve to be loved and respected by men who will love them, as men love women, not by men who don’t love women in this way. If society were to come to terms with the fact that there are men who don’t love women, gay men would no longer be driven to pretend to women in order to protect themselves from a society which cannot accept the reality of who they are, and these women’s lives would not be wasted in unhappiness.

There are many sins, which we, as a society will be responsible for, if we continue to treat these people as pariahs. What hurt must we be causing when they have to live with constant judgmentalism and condemnation? Why aren’t more people more concerned with our past sin of torturing and killing these people? We should concern ourselves with the state of our own souls, not make people different from us feel unloved, and of promoting laws that make them unequal in civil society.

The love between two people who are of the same gender can be just as real, and just the same as the love between couples of opposite genders. I believe that all people deserve the right to love someone. Love is the most powerful emotion on earth and should not be suppressed. Gay people have suffered through discrimination, prejudice, oppression, and injustice inflicted by society for so long. It just makes me sad whenever I think about it. No one should be denied the right to marry whom he or she loves. We are all human beings who deserve equal rights.

I think I've already written way, way, way too much, so I won't add any more. Anyhow, I think you expressed yourself very well in this post. And I completely agree that protesting at funerals and wearing those t-shirts is sad and pathetic. If they think they’re showing Christian values they are delusional. Jesus taught to love, not hate. I sometimes wonder if they’re faking it for media attention, because I just can’t believe anyone could really think that way.

Miss Jane Bennet said...

This was such a wonderful post- that was a delicate topic and you handled it perfectly. You expressed your viewpoint clearly but not harshly. It's so rare nowadays to have someone speak up against gay marriage. Thanks so much for this post!

I would love a post on Grantaire- he's such an interesting, complex character. And I wouldn't mind an Enjolras post either- perhaps you could include pictures? :)

Anonymous said...

When I saw the title, my first thought was, "Yeah, she's going to say she's in favor of Biblical marriage". I completely agree with everything you have said and God bless you for your courage to stand up for the truth.

On the subject of Enjo, were you going to post part three of your Les Mis review? I've been eagerly awaiting it for awhile!

Cait said...

It's so gladdening to read your views on this subject. I live in an area where not many people have a true understanding of God and the Gospel. That being said, I feel I must point out another reason (I feel a very important reason) why homosexuality is wrong and dishonoring to God. Its a distortion of the gospel. Marriage is a picture of the Gospel. Christ, the bridegroom, came to save his people, the bride, from satan. One groom, one bride. When you put two men or two women in a "relationship" it completely distorts the picture of what the gospel and what marriage is supposed to look like.
I'm not looking to offend anyone, I just felt this needed to be pointed out. Again, thank you for writing this blog post, and for giving me just one more reason to love your blog!

Kiri Liz said...

Amen, Amy! I really don't know what else to say other than this was an excellent post and it was written very well. Honestly. My feelings exactly.

Anonymous said...

Same gender marriage defeats the purpose of marriage. How will you multiply and fill the earth if you're the same gender as the one you're married to? Genesis 1:27-28 Genesis 2:22-24

And then you have to remember that marriage is a picture of Christ's relationship with the Church. Ephesians 5:31-33

Hopefully this didn't sound to blunt, but I wrote this up in a hurry (and haven't quite mastered the art of expressing myself the way I want too). I just wanted to give you (as in those who believe differently than I do) some things to think about.

Reading the Bible will answer most of your questions though.


Banríon An Gheimhridh said...

HV, I don't think multiplication is the purpose of marriage. If it were, marriage would be rather mercantile.

Isn't it partly to be with the one you love, and to be able to call them "husband" or "wife"? And some straight couples don't have children - I don't think that makes their marriage any less true.

Elkanah loved his wife, Hannah, who was barren, more than he loved his second wife, Peninnah, who had borne him children (I Samuel 1:4-5). Elkanah loved Hannah and it made no difference to him that she was childless, except that he was grieved to see her so sad. He tried to comfort her, saying: "Hannah, why weepest thou? and why eatest thou not? and why is thy heart grieved? am not I better to thee than ten sons?" (I Samuel 1:8). Marriage is the ceremony that celebrates love. It is for anyone who loves someone this way.

Also, Gay couples frequently make very good and loving parents. And they adopt children that straight parents don't want to care for, or can't care for, which is a really wonderful thing.

Not to mention our world population is threateningly high at this time, and reproduction is not as vital as it once was.

These are my thoughts on the matter, anyway.

Anonymous said...

Excellent! Extremely well said. I'm with you 100%! I like what you said about same-sex marriage not being about tradition at all; but it is about how God feels on the subject...and he tells us clearly through His living Word. Thank you for sharing scriptures as well. Romans 1:26-27 shows that these affections are not natural at all, but they are against nature and opposite to what God intended from the beginning. It's not about looking down on people who are "gay" and considering ourselves one is claiming that (not from what I see here, anyway.) It's simply being concerned with God's perspective. Christians are interested in God's perspective and want to do what pleases him. If there are people out there protesting at funerals and wearing t-shirts, claiming to be Christians, they are just giving Christianity a bad name because that is NOT what it's about.
So, AMEN to everything you said! It's so nice to see another Bible-believing Christian who stands up for God's word. You explain things very well. I like reading your blog and today when I saw this post I was thinking, 'Yes! Good for her!' and Amen-ing every paragraph I read :)

Melody said...

Hee... didn't the bit at the beginning to your young readers just make you feel so grown-up and superior? ;D

Oh dear, don't refer anybody to me to explain elaborate. I'll just be going "Uhhh... ehhhh... well... it means... elaborate."

Now I'm curious to know who quotation-mark-disliking friend is... ha... And I've never noticed you do that. And I have noticed other people do it. They just like use them in place of italicizing or underlining if they can't do those things and it looks ridiculous.
Moving on.

"...and that any violations of the seventh commandment."? I keep rereading that and it isn't making sense... o.O

Ha, I'd be happy to go back to the 1950s even if it wasn't perfect. ;D

Anyways. Good post. I'm proud of you. And I personally appreciated being able to read this clear and tactful presentation of the-view-I-agree-with. :)

Anonymous said...

Banríon An Gheimhridh, good point. Having children isn't the purpose of marriage but it is an important part of it.

Getting married (and anything else you do) should ultimately be for the glory of God.


Rosamund Gregory said...

Oh, what fun! A debate!

Banríon An Gheimhridh,

Let's see here...

It is the nature of conjugal love, though, to bear fruit (otherwise there would be no birth-control movement to thwart it.)It is not mere multiplication that is the aim, but the engenderation of new life in secondary creation. The natural way for children to be born is in the family through the love of a father and mother. The nature of love is to be self-sacrificing, as we see in Christ on the Cross, and through marriage the husband and wife die to themselves to give to their children.

To be opposed to homosexual acts is not to be opposed to the men and women themselves. We must love the sinner, hate the sin. The problem with homosexuality is that it makes barren that which is, of its nature, fruitful. Intimate love is not purely for sensory delight, but does have as its fruit the begetting of life. This does not mean that we must hate homosexual individuals. Indeed, we must love them in all depths of Charity. However, we cannot love the sin committed.

Love is one of the most important things in all of life. However, we also have to differentiate between the levels of it. Dante does it best, the Aquinas, then CS Lewis, but I'll try describing it out here anyways.

The lowest is simple liking, as we all have for ice cream; the liking of sensory delights. It is good, but easily sacrificed for higher things.

The next is affection, which we feel for auld lang syne and things that have always been around, a cozy comfortable feeling: for people or animals or objects merely on basis of their familiarity. It also can be sacrificed, though with greater pangs.

Next is friendship, the alignment two people with an idea that the same question is of vital importance--we all know this pretty well. It is more than pleasant; it has ties that are worth defending; but it is not the highest good.

Next is what the Greeks call Eros, and it is what is being discussed herein so very much: romantic love. It is probably the most discussed anyways, and it is life changing and powerful, but because of its greatness must be sacrificed to higher things.

Last is Charity, which is what really makes the world go round. It is the Love of the blessed Trinity, and draws all creation towards it. Man must subdue himself to it and live in it by participation before his other loves may be rightly ordered.

And it is in this right ordering of loves that the problems of the modern world lie. In homosexual acts, Eros is placed above Charity, and the temptation of the devil towards the making-barren-of-what-should-be-fruitful is given into. Lust, in other words. Actually, isn't this what all sin is? The giving into a wrong ordering of loves?

Okay, so sorry Miss Dashwood for pontificating with so little authority here on your blog. Lovely lovely article you have. Soi glad you believe what you say. I do believe in traditional marriage, as I am a Catholic (in case you haven't guessed by the argument above) and therefore love Sacred Tradition, which we say flows from the same divine wellspring as Scripture and guides its interpretation; but you made a pretty case all the same. By the way, an Enjolras post would be loverly.

(Interestingly enough, and opposite to poplar belief, the world population is decreasing dangerously in many places,especially all over Europe, to fall below the replacement point; though as a whole perhaps the world population is higher than in ages past. *resists turning into Enjolras over that phrase*)

Dominus Tecum,

Miss Rosamund Gregory

Anonymous said...

Thank you Rosamund for saying what I couldn't put into words!


Una Mariah said...

You expressed yourself perfectly! Bravo! And I'm gonna twist your arm too: please do posts about Grantaire and Enjolras!!!!

Joan said...

OK, I know this was posted a long time ago but "I must have my share in the conversation." Not the best time to quote P and P I know.
I agree with Miss Rosamund Gregory. I also agree with Miss Dashwood on most of the post. I am a Traditional Catholic. St. Augustine says in Book 1 of his book "On Marriage and Concupiscence," "The union, then, of male and female for the purpose of procreation is the natural good of marriage."
Since the Catholic Church believes that that Divine Revelation is transmitted in two ways, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, I believe that saying that I believe in a traditional wedding is not saying that I believe in homosexuality.
In saying that you believe marriage between a man and woman should be called a "biblical" wedding, I disagree. In the Old Testament, men had many wives. An example would be David. He had many wives.
I hope you don't get offended at this comment. I mean no offense. Good job for standing up for what you believe!

Miss Elliot said...

Well done, Miss Dashwood! So comforting to know where you stand in all the haze of clashing ideas.