Anna Jones Buttimore's Blog, page 17
March 15, 2011
Why I Oppose Gay Marriage
This is going to be another one of those controversial blogs, but I felt it was time I speak up for the many like me who are opposed to homosexual marriage, and explain exactly why.
I'm not even going to start off by apologetically explaining that I have nothing against gay people and have lots of gay friends. The first statement is true, but the social circles I move in (church and schoolmums) naturally mean that actually I don't have gay friends. But that's just how it is - it's not like I'm deliberately avoiding them.
My issue is not with the rights of anyone to be part of a loving relationship. I also recognise that people are very different and are thus attracted to different personalities, physical types and, yes, genders. We all need love in our lives, and part of the human condition is to seek it and thus find our own fulfillment and happiness.
At the heart of the issue is that word: Marriage.
As a deeply religious person, among my beliefs are the fact that marriage is a sacred and holy institution, established by God from the very beginning as part of a divine plan for our happiness and salvation. One of the pronouncements from the leaders of my church says, "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God". I believe that my husband and I consecrated ourselves to one another in the vows and covenants we made in August 2006, and that our union is both established by God and blessed and recognised by Him.
Because that's what marriage is and has always been: the sacred union between a man and a woman. Soaring divorce rates, domestic abuse, errant spouses and even "open marriages" do not change the basic fact that we have this unique and ancient covenant in which a man and a woman pledge themselves to one another for life. I think it's rather special and wonderful.
Another fundamental belief I hold is that any sexual behaviour outside the covenant of marriage - be it sex before marriage, or extramarital affairs - is wrong. I believe this primarily because the scriptures declare it to be so, but also due to common sense. My belief in the law of chastity (as this principle is called in my church) is not what is at issue here, but if you would like to know the reasons I consider saving sex for marriage to be self-evidently right, I drafted a document on the subject several years ago in which I gave six reasons to wait for marriage, none of which related to religion. I'm happy to supply this on request.
Putting these two facts together - that marriage is a holy covenant between a man and a women, and that sex outside marriage is wrong - you'll see one reason I believe homosexual sex is sinful; because it is sex outside marriage.
OK, so I'll admit, it's not the only reason. The scriptures are pretty vocal on homosexual behaviour being wrong in and of itself too. In fact, it the Bible calls it an abomination, detestable, indecent and degrading. (The usual disclaimer: it's not wrong to be homosexual or to feel attracted to people of the same sex. What is wrong is to act on those inclinations. There are homosexual people in my own church and I admire them very much because they are committed to living a life of chastity rather than sin.)
Are you keeping up so far? Homosexual behaviour is wrong because the Bible says so, and because it is outside marriage. But society today says that sex outside marriage is OK, and homosexual sex is OK too. I don't have to agree with that, but it's not really anything to do with me what people choose to do behind closed doors, is it? Why should I actively oppose gay marriage? Why don't I just accept that as someone else's business too?
An analogy. Let's say you're a teacher and have a class full of nine-year-olds. At the end of each day, those who work well, don't chew gum and sit properly on their chairs - all four chair legs on the ground - get a sticker. But some children like to rock back on their chairs, lifting up the front legs and balancing on just the two back legs. You tell them off each time, but they frown and tell you that it's perfectly safe to sit on the chair that way.
"No it isn't," you tell them, but none of them have yet fallen backwards, so they don't believe you.
"It's not what it was designed for," you respond. "Clearly the chair is meant to be used with all four legs on the floor."
"We have a right to use our chairs however we like," the naughty children respond.
Realising you're fighting a losing battle you give up and drop the issue. Maybe it's not a big deal.
But after a few days, those children start insisting they are owed a sticker for good behaviour. "I set the rules," you tell them, "And I give stickers to children who do good work and sit properly in their chairs."
There is a big difference, you see, between allowing a particular behaviour (or just turning a blind eye), and validating it. If the teacher gives in and gives a sticker to those naughty children, she is affording chair-rocking the same status as sitting properly.
And how might the good children who have sat nicely, worked well and quietly, and not chewed gum, feel to find their sticker reward devalued in this way?
That's why I have a problem with calling a union between two men, or two women, a "marriage". Marriage is something God regards as a holy union. A homosexual relationship is something which God regards as sinful and wrong. We cannot validate something God says is wrong by dressing it up as something He says is sacred.
I find it distressing that there are so many people who would want to give homosexual relationships the same standing, legally, morally and within society, as the precious and sacred covenant of marriage. I feel doing so makes a mockery of my marriage, devalues it, and goes against all that society has been about for thousands of years. (Can you imagine going back in time and telling your great-grandmother that two men can now get married? She'd think the world had gone stark-staring mad. She'd be right.)
I respect the right of everyone to form a loving relationship. I respect their right to use their "chair" however they like, even when it is quite obviously not the purpose it was designed for (although I may add a warning that the Teacher doesn't like it). However, I feel it is a step too far to validate those relationships by allowing gay marriage. In taking something which God says is wrong and perverted, and trying to validate it using something God says is right and holy, society is committing a gross act of sacrilege which offends me, and should offend all those who believe in the sanctity of marriage.
I'm not even going to start off by apologetically explaining that I have nothing against gay people and have lots of gay friends. The first statement is true, but the social circles I move in (church and schoolmums) naturally mean that actually I don't have gay friends. But that's just how it is - it's not like I'm deliberately avoiding them.
My issue is not with the rights of anyone to be part of a loving relationship. I also recognise that people are very different and are thus attracted to different personalities, physical types and, yes, genders. We all need love in our lives, and part of the human condition is to seek it and thus find our own fulfillment and happiness.
At the heart of the issue is that word: Marriage.
As a deeply religious person, among my beliefs are the fact that marriage is a sacred and holy institution, established by God from the very beginning as part of a divine plan for our happiness and salvation. One of the pronouncements from the leaders of my church says, "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God". I believe that my husband and I consecrated ourselves to one another in the vows and covenants we made in August 2006, and that our union is both established by God and blessed and recognised by Him.
Because that's what marriage is and has always been: the sacred union between a man and a woman. Soaring divorce rates, domestic abuse, errant spouses and even "open marriages" do not change the basic fact that we have this unique and ancient covenant in which a man and a woman pledge themselves to one another for life. I think it's rather special and wonderful.
Another fundamental belief I hold is that any sexual behaviour outside the covenant of marriage - be it sex before marriage, or extramarital affairs - is wrong. I believe this primarily because the scriptures declare it to be so, but also due to common sense. My belief in the law of chastity (as this principle is called in my church) is not what is at issue here, but if you would like to know the reasons I consider saving sex for marriage to be self-evidently right, I drafted a document on the subject several years ago in which I gave six reasons to wait for marriage, none of which related to religion. I'm happy to supply this on request.
Putting these two facts together - that marriage is a holy covenant between a man and a women, and that sex outside marriage is wrong - you'll see one reason I believe homosexual sex is sinful; because it is sex outside marriage.
OK, so I'll admit, it's not the only reason. The scriptures are pretty vocal on homosexual behaviour being wrong in and of itself too. In fact, it the Bible calls it an abomination, detestable, indecent and degrading. (The usual disclaimer: it's not wrong to be homosexual or to feel attracted to people of the same sex. What is wrong is to act on those inclinations. There are homosexual people in my own church and I admire them very much because they are committed to living a life of chastity rather than sin.)
Are you keeping up so far? Homosexual behaviour is wrong because the Bible says so, and because it is outside marriage. But society today says that sex outside marriage is OK, and homosexual sex is OK too. I don't have to agree with that, but it's not really anything to do with me what people choose to do behind closed doors, is it? Why should I actively oppose gay marriage? Why don't I just accept that as someone else's business too?
An analogy. Let's say you're a teacher and have a class full of nine-year-olds. At the end of each day, those who work well, don't chew gum and sit properly on their chairs - all four chair legs on the ground - get a sticker. But some children like to rock back on their chairs, lifting up the front legs and balancing on just the two back legs. You tell them off each time, but they frown and tell you that it's perfectly safe to sit on the chair that way.
"No it isn't," you tell them, but none of them have yet fallen backwards, so they don't believe you.
"It's not what it was designed for," you respond. "Clearly the chair is meant to be used with all four legs on the floor."
"We have a right to use our chairs however we like," the naughty children respond.
Realising you're fighting a losing battle you give up and drop the issue. Maybe it's not a big deal.
But after a few days, those children start insisting they are owed a sticker for good behaviour. "I set the rules," you tell them, "And I give stickers to children who do good work and sit properly in their chairs."
There is a big difference, you see, between allowing a particular behaviour (or just turning a blind eye), and validating it. If the teacher gives in and gives a sticker to those naughty children, she is affording chair-rocking the same status as sitting properly.
And how might the good children who have sat nicely, worked well and quietly, and not chewed gum, feel to find their sticker reward devalued in this way?
That's why I have a problem with calling a union between two men, or two women, a "marriage". Marriage is something God regards as a holy union. A homosexual relationship is something which God regards as sinful and wrong. We cannot validate something God says is wrong by dressing it up as something He says is sacred.
I find it distressing that there are so many people who would want to give homosexual relationships the same standing, legally, morally and within society, as the precious and sacred covenant of marriage. I feel doing so makes a mockery of my marriage, devalues it, and goes against all that society has been about for thousands of years. (Can you imagine going back in time and telling your great-grandmother that two men can now get married? She'd think the world had gone stark-staring mad. She'd be right.)
I respect the right of everyone to form a loving relationship. I respect their right to use their "chair" however they like, even when it is quite obviously not the purpose it was designed for (although I may add a warning that the Teacher doesn't like it). However, I feel it is a step too far to validate those relationships by allowing gay marriage. In taking something which God says is wrong and perverted, and trying to validate it using something God says is right and holy, society is committing a gross act of sacrilege which offends me, and should offend all those who believe in the sanctity of marriage.
February 14, 2011
Good Romance Writing
It's Valentine's Day as I write this (although it probably won't be by the time you read it) so my thoughts are naturally turning to romance, and romance writing in particular.
My new book, Honeymoon Heist, is a romance in a sense, although the couple in question are married. One of the discussion questions at the end of the book is "Can a novel still be a romance or love story when the couple are married?" Over the weekend I got my own answer to that question when I read one of the most touching and romantic scenes I have ever had the pleasure to cry over.
The book was "Tea Time for the Traditionally Built" by Alexander McCall Smith. Thanks to my book club (yet another reason to love book clubs) I have recently discovered the No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency series, and this particular chapter really summed up, for me, just how masterful the author is.
The heroine, Precious Ramotswe, is married to Mr J.L.B. Matekoni, a mechanic. Having read the first few books in the series, I've followed them from the proposal through the wedding and into the first couple of years of marriage. He has always referred to her as Mma Ramotswe, and she always calls him Mr J.L.B. Matekoni. There has never, as far as I can remember, been any declaration of love, kissing or (perish the thought) anything more demostrative of their affection.
In the chapter in question Mr J.L.B. Matekoni has driven to Lobatse, along a dangerous road, to help out at a friend's garage. As he is leaving in the morning Mma Ramotswe feels a few moments of anxiety and runs out of the house to say goodbye to him again. During the course of her full day there are a few times when she thinks about her husband - how he compares to one of her clients, how he would respond to a particular situation - and by the time she arrives home again late in the evening she is reflecting that each day people are given bad news which changes their lives, and wondering if it is her turn. Her relief at seeing the lights of his truck is what had me blubbing, and as she ran out to greet him I reflected that her simple concern for her good and kind husband was filled more love and emotion than any romantic scene I had read elsewhere.
Mr J.L.B. Matekoni proposed to Mma Ramotswe by saying, "Please marry me, Mma Ramotswe. I am just Mr J.L.B. Matekoni, that's all, but please marry me and make me happy." No declaration of love, no compliment, not even a ring. I'm a Twilight fan (what do you mean you didn't know?) yet I can't help but think now that their marriage is as close and devoted and wonderful and Edward and Bella's. It is stunning and masterful writing that can turn a wife's simple concern for her perfectly ordinary, if very honourable and likeable, husband into a sweeping, powerful, emotional epic to rival Romeo and Juliet, or even Elizabeth and Mr Darcy (and they didn't snog either).
My new book, Honeymoon Heist, is a romance in a sense, although the couple in question are married. One of the discussion questions at the end of the book is "Can a novel still be a romance or love story when the couple are married?" Over the weekend I got my own answer to that question when I read one of the most touching and romantic scenes I have ever had the pleasure to cry over.
The book was "Tea Time for the Traditionally Built" by Alexander McCall Smith. Thanks to my book club (yet another reason to love book clubs) I have recently discovered the No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency series, and this particular chapter really summed up, for me, just how masterful the author is.
The heroine, Precious Ramotswe, is married to Mr J.L.B. Matekoni, a mechanic. Having read the first few books in the series, I've followed them from the proposal through the wedding and into the first couple of years of marriage. He has always referred to her as Mma Ramotswe, and she always calls him Mr J.L.B. Matekoni. There has never, as far as I can remember, been any declaration of love, kissing or (perish the thought) anything more demostrative of their affection.
In the chapter in question Mr J.L.B. Matekoni has driven to Lobatse, along a dangerous road, to help out at a friend's garage. As he is leaving in the morning Mma Ramotswe feels a few moments of anxiety and runs out of the house to say goodbye to him again. During the course of her full day there are a few times when she thinks about her husband - how he compares to one of her clients, how he would respond to a particular situation - and by the time she arrives home again late in the evening she is reflecting that each day people are given bad news which changes their lives, and wondering if it is her turn. Her relief at seeing the lights of his truck is what had me blubbing, and as she ran out to greet him I reflected that her simple concern for her good and kind husband was filled more love and emotion than any romantic scene I had read elsewhere.
Mr J.L.B. Matekoni proposed to Mma Ramotswe by saying, "Please marry me, Mma Ramotswe. I am just Mr J.L.B. Matekoni, that's all, but please marry me and make me happy." No declaration of love, no compliment, not even a ring. I'm a Twilight fan (what do you mean you didn't know?) yet I can't help but think now that their marriage is as close and devoted and wonderful and Edward and Bella's. It is stunning and masterful writing that can turn a wife's simple concern for her perfectly ordinary, if very honourable and likeable, husband into a sweeping, powerful, emotional epic to rival Romeo and Juliet, or even Elizabeth and Mr Darcy (and they didn't snog either).
February 8, 2011
What's in a Name?
Sorry about the really, really unoriginal blog title there, but I just couldn't think of a better one. Because I am blogging about the names of my books.
Did you know I'm the Author of In the Shadow of the Mountain, Home at Haven, Easterfield and The Honeymooners? No? Those are all the original titles of my first four novels. If you actually know the titles of my books you'll notice that all of them, except Easterfield, have been changed prior to publication.
The name of a book is very important. It might be the only part the bookshop browser ever sees, and, like a newspaper headline, it needs to be intriguing enough to catch their attention. Not only that, but it should also sum up the spirit of the book, perhaps evoke a feeling or even another book, and hint at the plot at the same time.
Publishers are excellent at choosing titles, and I particularly like the title they picked for Honeymoon Heist. My favourite of those they listed as possible options was The Getaway but having seen the finished article, Honeymoon Heist sums it up perfectly. (And I'm a big fan of alliteration.)
I have just renamed my work-in-progress for the second time. It was originally just called Emon and then I changed it to Emon and the Empire to hint at the fantasy content. I've now just changed it again, to Emon and the Emperor which is a fantastic title, if I do say so myself. It has some lovely alliteration, it puts our main character right out front and still hints at the fantasy content, and it also throws out a lovely plot "red herring" which hopefully will make readers gasp in surprise as they close the book and suddenly "get" the title.
If it ever gets published I expect the publisher will change the title again to something totally different. But that's fine, because they know best, and the new title will probably be even better.
Did you know I'm the Author of In the Shadow of the Mountain, Home at Haven, Easterfield and The Honeymooners? No? Those are all the original titles of my first four novels. If you actually know the titles of my books you'll notice that all of them, except Easterfield, have been changed prior to publication.
The name of a book is very important. It might be the only part the bookshop browser ever sees, and, like a newspaper headline, it needs to be intriguing enough to catch their attention. Not only that, but it should also sum up the spirit of the book, perhaps evoke a feeling or even another book, and hint at the plot at the same time.
Publishers are excellent at choosing titles, and I particularly like the title they picked for Honeymoon Heist. My favourite of those they listed as possible options was The Getaway but having seen the finished article, Honeymoon Heist sums it up perfectly. (And I'm a big fan of alliteration.)
I have just renamed my work-in-progress for the second time. It was originally just called Emon and then I changed it to Emon and the Empire to hint at the fantasy content. I've now just changed it again, to Emon and the Emperor which is a fantastic title, if I do say so myself. It has some lovely alliteration, it puts our main character right out front and still hints at the fantasy content, and it also throws out a lovely plot "red herring" which hopefully will make readers gasp in surprise as they close the book and suddenly "get" the title.
If it ever gets published I expect the publisher will change the title again to something totally different. But that's fine, because they know best, and the new title will probably be even better.
