What #StarTrek teaches us about #GayMarriage, The #ChurchOfEngland, & former Archbishop #Carey

So it is some time in the future; an alien craft lands on Earth and extraterrestrial life is introduced to humans for the first time.

The aliens are amazingly humanoid – more than passingly so – and clearly sexually differentiated along the same lines as humans; you could go so far as to call some of them beautiful. They are called Vulcans. They are long-lived, polite, calm, peace-loving, cerebral. Oh, and did we mention that they landed in a space-ship, so they have science understanding and technology far in advance of our own?

They cement relations with the people of Earth, share their technology, set up mutual embassies on the respective planets… and then the Vulcan ambassador – a male of their species – forms a relationship with a Human woman, and by means undisclosed they have a species-hybrid child, a son.

The most important question here is self-evident: would we call the subsequent life-long, loving relationship between the alien male and the human female, a “marriage”?

I suspect the answer according to the former Archbishop of Canterbury would be “no”; he has, after all, just gone on record saying that the Church believes that people cannot just call something a marriage simply because it looks like a marriage:

Lord Carey, a critic of plans to legalise gay marriage, accused Ms Featherstone [an MP] of putting an “unwarranted slant” on his words.

“When I said that not even the Church owns [marriage], I meant that the Church has no authority to change the definition of marriage as far as Christian thinking is concerned – there is a givenness to it,” he told the newspaper.

“[Ms Featherstone’s] logic implies the will of the people is sovereign.

So for our alien/human couple, questions would be first raised as to whether this coupling constituted bestiality, and secondly whether Vulcan males were real males – whether for instance they have penises.

The bestiality issue would be a tough one because it’s unclear whether the church can differentiate between a peaceful spacefaring race with starships and advanced weaponry versus, for instance, a stoat. Vulcans clearly are not descended from apes, nor indeed have evolved from any primordial Earth slime, so there will be an interesting question of whether or not marriage is between a human man and a woman.

American anti-gay-marriage activists have already beaten the bestiality question to death – but if we allow vulcan/human marriages it seems unfair to stoats.

Then there’s the whole male thing – for all we know Vulcans may have avian-like cloaca; also I am unwarrantedly assuming that having a penis qualifies you as male for the church, but given the broad religious predilection for foreskins I hope that’s a safe bet.

With all this uncertainty I foresee four possible refuges for religious thinkers:

  1. Yes, it’s a marriage
  2. No, aliens are the same as stoats; possibly not even male stoats.
  3. Star Trek is science fiction, get real.
  4. Let’s wait until it’s a real issue, and then decide.

I have no problem with option 1, and option 2 will be dealt with by Darwin and whether the human race still has pragmatic politicians in charge of our military when the aliens arrive.

Options 3 and 4? They are different sides of the same coin: speculate about the future and deal with it if-and-when it happens. The universe is a huge place, and our research is more and more suggestive of the potential for life elsewhere.

Curiously this is also the tack that George Carey is taking on the gay marriage debate, although he takes option 3:

“So let’s suppose that in 10 years’ time it is proposed that, as people are living in multiples of four, we may call that marriage also.” [if the will of the people is sovereign]

Earlier this month, Lord Carey said legalising gay marriage would be “an act of cultural and theological vandalism”.

Mmmm. I wonder if he can tell gay people from stoats?

Comments

7 responses to “What #StarTrek teaches us about #GayMarriage, The #ChurchOfEngland, & former Archbishop #Carey”

  1. Dear Alex: if starmen came to not just to greet us but to reproduce with us they would indeed blow our minds. What name we give the relationship would hardly be the most important question.

    It feels like to centre of this argument is what is the meaning of a word. But plain fact is many strands of Christianity have cause deep and wide damage with a prescriptive and moralising view of sexual relations. Proponents carry on wrong-headedly wanting to pursue discrimination and prejudice today despite the evidence of all the damage done over the centuries.

    I’m mulling over a 1963 essay called “towards a Quaker view of sex” which combines compassion with the condition of homosexuals (at a time when the acts they wanted to do in love were still illegal), coruscating critique of Christian theology and powerful, liberating, challenging notions eg of whether physical acts can be immoral and what chastity really means.

    Will brew up a blog post.

    1. William,

      >Dear Alex: if starmen came to not just to greet us but to reproduce with us they would indeed blow our minds. What name we give the relationship would hardly be the most important question.

      You’re clearly not the former Archbishop of Canterbury. 🙂

      Look fwd to the blogpost.

  2. The former AB of C might also like to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_marriage and possibly the unabridged cut of “Stranger in a Strange Land”

  3. Jim

    I think there’s nothing wrong with Christians defining marriage for Christians .. not that even all Christians agree on the subject.

    Where there’s a problem is when Christians take it on themselves to define marriage for Everyone. While they certainly have the right, in a free society, to try and do so through the weight of argument, NO one has the right to try and impose their particular view on society at large .. against the general will of that society.

    Neither do they or anyone else have the right to dehumanize or denigrate people of other views.

    it’s been, sadly, too true of the Church .. like most human institutions .. but was never true of Jesus.

    Why is it so hard for us to differentiate this issue and recognize that there is Civil Union and, for those who are religious, religious union based on the particulars of their faith .. of which there are MANY varieties and views?

    The role of government in this is to register the voluntary union of adult citizens .. nothing more.
    All such unions should be treated by govt in the same way for purposes of law, contract, etc.

    Leave the faith issues to the faith involved .. only.

    in the Vulcan example, if they’re gonna live on Earth and in a given society, the only decisions to make are:

    1) Is the Vulcan sentient, adult and consenting?
    2) what residency laws apply? 🙂

    It might be troublesome if the sentient and self-aware (consenting) issues were hard to deal with .. which would be the stoat issues.. 🙂 .. but once you get past those it should be pretty simple.

    We just make it complicated.

    My view, anyway..

  4. Fred Avolio

    Live long and prosper, Alec of Earth!

  5. Dave Walker

    Yet another case for “reasons to expect religious belief – and especially monotheistic religious belief – not to survive the discovery of extraterrestrial life”, IMHO.

  6. Dave Walker

    Actually, the “adult” issue probably isn’t straightforward, either – and you don’t even need to involve Vulcans.

    Consider the hypothetical case of an Estonian boy and girl, legally married in Estonia (so, within the EU) at age 15, who move to the UK before they’ve both turned 16. What’s their marital status in the eyes of British law, C of E notwithstanding?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *