Does Gay Justify Divorce?

[brightlights]

Happens more and more often these days. Just recently happened in the Christian world. One party in a marriage (many times with children) discovers or decides that they are gay. Then they dissolve the marriage in order to be with a gay partner.

This is often seen as the courageous thing to do.

Homosexuality issues aside, does "becoming gay"* mid-life justify leaving your spouse and breaking apart your family? Think about the other partner in the marriage. They have given up everything to design their lives around the other partner. Is it fair to them that the other partner suddenly decides that they're gay? Is it fair to the children?

We live in a culture where self-expression is the ultimate virtue and the trump card in all decision making. But in times past duty was more important than self-expression or even satisfaction and fulfillment.

So does gay justify divorce?

*"becoming gay" can mean "discovering that you're gay", "deciding that you're gay", "coming to terms with the fact that you're gay" or whatever else can reasonably be comprehended under that term.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes. I also think it would be grounds for annulment due to fundamental incompatability. It really comes down to what both parties want, though. I remember a few years ago an ELCA bishop in the midwest came out as gay, but he decided to remain married to his wife because they had spent so many years together and were close friends, and his kids had grown used to the family being together. He just came out as gay because of the "It Gets Better" campaign, and he realized for many years he had been closeted about his own sexuality. It wasn't really about wanting to divorce his wife.

I think that's a noble choice, but people should feel free to dissolve those types of marriages, especially if there is less attachment. It really is not fair to wives at all to have to be in a relationship like that.

 

[brightlights]

Yes. I also think it would be grounds for annulment due to fundamental incompatability. It really comes down to what both parties want, though. I remember a few years ago an ELCA bishop in the midwest came out as gay, but he decided to remain married to his wife because they had spent so many years together and were close friends, and his kids had grown used to the family being together. He just came out as gay because of the "It Gets Better" campaign, and he realized for many years he had been closeted about his own sexuality. It wasn't really about wanting to divorce his wife.

I think that's a noble choice, but people should feel free to dissolve those types of marriages, especially if there is less attachment. It really is not fair to wives at all to have to be in a relationship like that.

Is your position in any way supported by Scripture? Or is it contrary to Scripture?

 

[Desk trauma]

Is your position in any way supported by Scripture? Or is it contrary to Scripture?

The scriptural position is to kill them so divorce is unnecessary.

 

[brightlights]

The scriptural position is to kill them so divorce is unnecessary.

True. At least in an OT Israel context. Not so much in an OT exilic context or NT context.

Also homosexuality is a 20th century concept and, as such, is not really comprehended in Scripture.

 

[FireDragon76]

Is your position in any way supported by Scripture? Or is it contrary to Scripture?

I'd say it fits within Jesus idea that divorce is regrettable but permisable in cases of unfaithfulness. It also follows the church tradition of considering basic incompatibilities like impotence and so forth to be grounds for dissolution of the marriage.

Beyond that, I think there is a world of difference in our ethical assumptions about what it means to be "biblical". Stoning to death was biblical, after all, but we've just pointed out that most of us consider stoning abhorent now days. I'm into phenomenological personalism, proportional ethics, pragmatism, that sort of thing. People are individuals, the right thing to do is going to vary by individual circumstances.

 

[FireDragon76]

BTW, as a Lutheran I will say that God justifies the ungodly. That should be the start of our ethical considerations. God is merciful.

 

[brightlights]

I'd say it fits within Jesus idea that divorce is regrettable but permisable in cases of unfaithfulness.

Why does gay mean unfaithfulness? What if no adultery has occurred? Does gay justify adultery?

It also follows the church tradition of considering basic incompatibilities like impotence and so forth to be grounds for dissolution of the marriage.

I'm aware of no such church teachings. Which church teachings are you referring to? The notion that impotence or barrenness would be grounds for divorce strikes me as horribly unbiblical.

 

[FireDragon76]

Faithfulness does not just involve not having sex with other people. A gay man is not capable of being sexually faithful to a woman. St. Augustine basically told a woman that if she became a celibate within marriage, she was responsible for her husbands adultery.

 

[brightlights]

Faithfulness does not just involve not having sex with other people. A gay man is not capable of being sexually faithful to a woman.

Why not?

St. Augustine basically told a woman that if she became a celibate within marriage, she was responsible for her husbands adultery.

Indeed withholding conjugal rights would be sinful per 1 Corinthians 7. But why cannot a loving partner choose to set aside his preferences and serve his spouse even though he is not sexually aroused?

 

[FireDragon76]

Indeed withholding conjugal rights would be sinful per 1 Corinthians 7. But why cannot a loving partner choose to set aside his preferences and serve his spouse even though he is not sexually aroused?

I guess I'm a bit flabbergasted by that idea. The only folks I've met that have found themselves in that position have ended up divorced. I can't imagine encouraging somebody who is gay to marry a woman. It ain't gonna to be pretty.

I wish I had a more biblical answer for you, but I think there's too big a difference in our approaches to the Scriptures to reach a common ground without alot of work, at least on this particular issue. It's something I dealt with years ago (I was involved in a conservative Anglican and then Orthodox church, and started encountering lots of gay people and having to deal with the ethics of stuff first hand) and honestly its water under the bridge for me.

 

[brightlights]

I guess I'm a bit flabbergasted by that idea. The only folks I've met that have found themselves in that position have ended up divorced. I can't imagine encouraging somebody who is gay to marry a woman. It ain't gonna to be pretty.

I think part of the problem is our 20th century ideas and values. The notion of homosexuality (or heterosexuality for that matter) is a 20th century notion. No one would have defined themselves in terms of sexual preference before our age.

Also the notion that happiness in life comes from sexual fulfillment is very 20th century thinking.

So is your imagination limited by the social constructions of your time and place?

 

[FireDragon76]

Well, I've give you credit for rising above 90 percent of the posts on this forum and really striking at the heart of the issue.

I think part of the problem is our 20th century ideas and values. The notion of homosexuality (or heterosexuality for that matter) is a 20th century notion. No one would have defined themselves in terms of sexual preference before our age.

True, but that doesn't mean gay people didn't exist back then.

Also the notion that happiness in life comes from sexual fulfillment is very 20th century thinking.

True, but that doesn't mean it is exactly wrong, either. I mean I'm not exactly for having orgies on the altar or anything like that. Just tweaked my sexual ethics a bit. Starting in the 20's the Anglican church eased its stance on birth control (and I agree with the reasoning). Once you do that you start to have to admit that all sorts of other things might need easing too, in terms of sexual ethics.

So is your imagination limited by the social constructions of your time and place?

Nope. I used to be an Orthodox Christian, a catechumen, for several years, and before that, I attended a conservative Anglican church (smells n bells, more catholic than the pope without the pope) that took a traditional stance on this issue. And I agreed with their view of sexual ethics. But I really had to reconsider that stuff, esp. the more I delved into trying to live out a celibate vocation and encountering other people that had rejected that in favor of finding a partner or spouse. I realized that people were just doing the best they could do, so I sought out other answers. To top it off, I realized I had a lot of my own hypocrisies that had blinded me in the past and was still blinding me (why else do you think I'm Lutheran? Total depravity isn't such a difficult concept for me). So I don't think I have a limited imagination. I've been down both sides of the issue, and it wasn't merely capitulating to popularity that drove my ethics.

 

[brightlights]

True, but that doesn't mean gay people didn't exist back then.

Only if you accept this 20th century notion as concordant with reality. I, for one, don't believe there's any such thing as homosexuality or heterosexuality.

True, but that doesn't mean it is exactly wrong, either. I mean I'm not exactly for having orgies on the altar or anything like that. Just tweaked my sexual ethics a bit. Starting in the 20's the Anglican church eased its stance on birth control (and I agree with the reasoning). Once you do that you start to have to admit that all sorts of other things might need easing too, in terms of sexual ethics.

I'm a bit confused. Because we tweak our views on birth control (another 20th century invention) then everything else is also up for grabs?

 

[FireDragon76]

Only if you accept this 20th century notion as concordant with reality. I, for one, don't believe there's any such thing as homosexuality or heterosexuality.

OK, I disagree, but I can see where you are coming from. The issue is a lot like the modernist debates that happened a century ago in Protestantism. We've got new data about the world and churches disagree on how to interpret it.

I'm a bit confused. Because we tweak our views on birth control (another 20th century invention) then everything else is also up for grabs?

"everything"? I think that is a stretch. It does mean having to put aside some certainties about things.

 

[Dave-W]

St. Augustine basically told a woman that if she became a celibate within marriage, she was responsible for her husbands adultery.

The same guy that said (probably quoting an earlier ECF) that God so hates marital relations that the Holy Spirit has to vacate the premises when a married couple are so engaged?

 

[quatona]

I, for one, don't believe there's any such thing as homosexuality or heterosexuality.

Under this premise, your question doesn´t even make any sense.

 

[FireDragon76]

The same guy that said (probably quoting an earlier ECF) that God so hates marital relations that the Holy Spirit has to vacate the premises when a married couple are so engaged?

Yes. Though I have just defended the right for modern people to their own understanding of sexuality, yet I'm not willing to put that up on a pedestal to dismiss all ideas of the ancients, just because some seem silly now.

 

[Larniavc]

Homosexuality issues aside, does "becoming gay"* mid-life justify leaving your spouse and breaking apart your family.

This is what happened with my mum and dad.

It was better than them both being unhappy.

 

[brightlights]

Under this premise, your question doesn´t even make any sense.

How's that?