A silly simple question on sexual orientation (re gay marriage)

[crazzeto]

I for one agree 100% with the Catholic church on this issue.

So does my church.

I like that article and agree with it.

I I believed that same-sex sexual orientation came from God, consistency would force me to believe that the sexual orientations toward children come from God.

Then I would either be forced to believe that paedophilia a part of God’s design, or that God gave some sexual orientations that were not meant to be acted on.

To me, the simplest explantion is that alternate sexual orientations are somehow a part of the fall and do not come from God. I think that is what your article is saying, albeit in a lot more words.

Yeah, the first posting used way too much extrabiblical reasoning in order to derive an erroneous conclusion… The fact is, in order to get to “homosexuality is God designed, there for not sinful” is that you have to ignore too much scripture both old and new.

Rather, the last point you got at in your posting was more dead on. God acknowleges it’s existance in so far to state in clear and uncertain terms that it is disordered and thus not to be acted upon.

 

[Dokimas]

Continued: eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

Alexander Hamilton:
• Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great:
(1) Christianity
(2) a Constitution formed under Christianity.
“The Christian Constitutional Society, its object is first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.”

On July 12, 1804 at his death, Hamilton said, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.”

“For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.” [1787 after the Constitutional Convention]

“I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man.”

Patrick Henry:
“Orator of the Revolution.”
• This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.”
—The Last Will and Testament of Patrick Henry

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]

“The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed.”

 

[Dokimas]

Cont: eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

John Jay:
“ Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” Source: October 12, 1816. The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed., (New York: Burt Franklin, 1970), Vol. IV, p. 393.

“Whether our religion permits Christians to vote for infidel rulers is a question which merits more consideration than it seems yet to have generally received either from the clergy or the laity. It appears to me that what the prophet said to Jehoshaphat about his attachment to Ahab “Shouldest thou help the ungodly and love them that hate the Lord?” 2 Chronicles 19:2] affords a salutary lesson.” [The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, 1794-1826, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1893), Vol. IV, p.365]

**Charles Carroll **- signer of the Declaration of Independence | Portrait of Charles Carroll
" Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure…are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." [Source: To James McHenry on November 4, 1800.]

In **Benjamin Franklin’s **1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach “the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.”

In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as “a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone.”

Benjamin Rush:
• “I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes and take so little pains to prevent them…we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government; that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible; for this Divine Book, above all others, constitutes the soul of republicanism.” “By withholding the knowledge of [the Scriptures] from children, we deprive ourselves of the best means of awakening moral sensibility in their minds.” [Letter written (1790’s) in Defense of the Bible in all schools in America]
• “Christianity is the only true and perfect religion.”
• “If moral precepts alone could have reformed mankind, the mission of the Son of God into our world would have been unnecessary.”

"Let the children who are sent to those schools be taught to read and write and above all, let both sexes be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of education”
Letters of Benjamin Rush, “To the citizens of Philadelphia: A Plan for Free Schools”, March 28, 1787

 

[Dokimas]

cont. eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

George Washington:

Farewell Address: The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion" …and later: “…reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle…”

“ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”

“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” [speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779]

“To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian” [May 2, 1778, at Valley Forge]

cont. faithofourfathers.net/

All but two of the first 108 universities founded in America were Christian. This includes the first, Harvard, where the student handbook listed this as Rule #1: “Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3; and therefore to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation for our children to follow the moral principles of the Ten Commandments."

In 1777. Continental Congress voted to spend $300,000 to purchase bibles which were to be distributed throughout the 13 colonies! And in 1782, the **United States Congress **declared, “The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.

Doki’s comment: Anti-Theist, if you get this far, how does the 1st Ammendment to the Constitution and the 1782 statement in congress match up?

 

[bibleloyal]

DEO: Mark?

Your comments below, and now my response to it:

You are so wrapped up in your church traditions, and history of your church that would deliberately go against the Word of God? Those scriptures that I gave earlier are very clearly worded, and leave no room for mistakes. Do you actually WANT GOD’S MIND on the subject? Then read God’s Word the Bible. The message is clear when it comes to homosexuality. It is not approved by God. Want to know his opinon? God Almighty destroyed Sodom and Gomorroh for that very reason. That is the opinion of God the Almighty. He had it written down in his word the Bible.

I could not care less the opinion of the Catholic church on it, or individual members of the church that seek to justify it (possibly because they are already homosexual?) for whatever reason. They want to justify it? They want to try and use the Bible to say that its ok? The Bible does not support homosexuality in any way. Give me just scripture that specifically states that it is ok. The Apostle Paul referred to it, and said "yet that is what some of you “were” In other words they had to change. It is fine for people to leave a former way of life that is bad, but provided that they accept God’s Laws and if they have to give away filthy and vile practices like homosexuality, then that is good.

I tried to make sense of your answer, and it appears to me, that you would say to hell with the Bible, but I will follow the Church? Is that what you actually said? that is the impression I got, and sorry if I got it wrong. I read it a few times and tried to make sense of your answer.

Matthew 7:21-23 perfectly describes people you that claim to be Christians and are actually disobedient and not do the things I say. Jesus said “Get away from me you workers of lawlessness”

"Bibleloyal, I certainly respect your position. But as Josh has pointed out, it doesn’t tell the whole story.

Of all the things that the Bible is, it is most clearly and uniquely a record of the relationship between God and man by which the nature of both and the operation of grace can be discerned. There are many things, however, that the Bible is not and that it is, moreover, ill-suited to be: a science textbook, a history textbook, a book of instructions on how to live one’s life. If the Bible is to be a living witness of our relationship with God, and not a dead letter item or the object of moral fantisizing or nostalgia, we must interact with it, relate with it and to it. Tradition is in a similar position. Both, in other words, are authoritative, neither is an authority.

What is? The Church, of course. The Romans locate the authority of the Church in the teaching magisterium. Anglicans of a more catholic persuasion are more likely (possibly! we’re talking about Anglicanism after all) to locate it in the communion of believers, which authority is exercised and articulated by the local church in communion with the Bishop. In both cases, though, what the Church says is authoritative, like it or not. Our Lord gave to his Church the power to bind and loose. This power was exercised at the Jerusalem council described in Acts. It is a power exercised by the Church (regardless of what Church it is) when the Church decides what is or is not binding on the beliefs and behaviors of Christians. You may not agree with this model of authority. But the authority of which I speak is valid and licit. I don’t agree with everything that Rome articulates in her catechism, but I do not argue with the premise that the authority with which she articulates it is valid and licit. Many Romans, and many such as yourself, may have qualms about the authority of the Episcopal Church. You may not find it either valid or licit or compelling. That is immaterial to me. I, however, do find the authority of the Church to which I belong to be valid, licit, and compelling, and, moreover, I am bound to do so, for better or worse.

Also, your approach to the Bible seems to insist that it needs no interpreting, which again points to a model of authority which I do not share, but also seems to go against the witness of the Fathers. Origen wrote that scripture was like an ocean: there are those who are perfectly happy swim on the surface, but they will never now the riches contained in the depths unless they dive deeper. That diving implies relationship and interpretation.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias! "

 

[jmcrae]

I tried to make sense of your answer, and it appears to me, that you would say to hell with the Bible, but I will follow the Church?

Just FYI, it is impossible to follow the Church, without also following the Bible. The Church teaches that homosexual behaviour is gravely sinful (which is to say, those who do it will more likely end up in Hell, than not). God will not be mocked; those who twist the words of Church teaching to make them say things they don’t really say will find themselves wishing they had just followed the plain sense of the text, when they had the opportunity.

 

[Alcrusader]

I don’t understand why people wanna be married specially if it’s a gay marriage!
God created for each man a woman, and for each woman a man! He never allowed a union between 2 mens or 2 womens!
This sexual behavior could be healed by psychical treatments, and I don’t believe those who say that it’s genetic at all the time!

You are sining people, you are sinners… remember what happened in Sodom and Gomorrah where sins where everywhere, where the gay and lesbian thing were everywhere…
Remember what God it at that time…

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

You are so wrapped up in your church traditions, and history of your church that would deliberately go against the Word of God? Those scriptures that I gave earlier are very clearly worded, and leave no room for mistakes. Do you actually WANT GOD’S MIND on the subject? Then read God’s Word the Bible. The message is clear when it comes to homosexuality. It is not approved by God. Want to know his opinon? God Almighty destroyed Sodom and Gomorroh for that very reason. That is the opinion of God the Almighty. He had it written down in his word the Bible.

I could not care less the opinion of the Catholic church on it, or individual members of the church that seek to justify it (possibly because they are already homosexual?) for whatever reason. They want to justify it? They want to try and use the Bible to say that its ok? The Bible does not support homosexuality in any way. Give me just scripture that specifically states that it is ok. The Apostle Paul referred to it, and said "yet that is what some of you “were” In other words they had to change. It is fine for people to leave a former way of life that is bad, but provided that they accept God’s Laws and if they have to give away filthy and vile practices like homosexuality, then that is good.

I tried to make sense of your answer, and it appears to me, that you would say to hell with the Bible, but I will follow the Church? Is that what you actually said? that is the impression I got, and sorry if I got it wrong. I read it a few times and tried to make sense of your answer.

Matthew 7:21-23 perfectly describes people you that claim to be Christians and are actually disobedient and not do the things I say. Jesus said “Get away from me you workers of lawlessness”

Bibleloyal, I appreciate your perspective on this. We have different models of authority. Like jmcrae, I do not believe that you can follow the Church without following the Bible. And I readily admit that that causes friction when different Church bodies interpret the Bible differently. That just makes the human adventure that much more exciting! Though I doubt that you share my enthusiasm in that regard.

Speaking of clear wording (and I nod in your direction, too, jmcrae), I always find it a bit mysterious when those who are gung ho about plain readings in one area often insist on proper contextualization in another. I think I would probably take your warnings, threats and interpretation more seriously if I could be assured that you have sold all of your possessions and given them to the poor, or if you hold your possessions in common with the other members of the Church for the uplift of the poor and needy, eschewing the concept of personal property as is the plain witness regarding the early Church in Acts.

But I won’t get into a scripture interpretation tete a tete with you, Bibleloyal, mostly because I think we would both find it tiring and unproductive in the end. Let it be known that I respectfully disagree with your model of authority as well as with your selective notions of plain readings (which, for what its worth, always come across to me as attempts to avoid engagement with Scripture in order to hew more closely to a particular cultural ideal or status quo that we find comforting, one which tells us the story we’d most like to hear about ourselves and our goodness and assures us of our own righteousness over against the unrighteous other). I grant that you may reach the conclusions that you have reached given your interpretation, and that those conclusions therefore have some basis in a particular understanding of scripture and its relationship with authority. I, however, do not find those readings authoritative. Should your model of authority be correct and mine in error, or vice versa (imagine the possibility!), I trust that God is merciful, loving, and good and will not frown too harshly on those who sincerely follow the Way in the way that they have been taught and genuinely believe to be true and authoritative. What else can either of us do in the end but confess Christ and, by God’s grace, love God with all our being and our neighbor as ourselves?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

How many people in homosexual relationships do you know who have actually remained with one partner for life? I’m betting not many, unless they are very young, or didn’t get into the lifestyle until later in life.

I know that they have good intentions - and everyone brings up the 35% of married heterosexuals who divorce and remarry - but if you wait ten years, everyone you know who is in a homosexual relationship right now, will have changed partners, or else will have left the lifestyle.

jmcrae, I wonder if you would be so kind as to predict for me when my relationship with my partner will end? We’re completing our 12th year in happy, loving monogamy together. But perhaps you have a better sense of our relationship than either I or my partner or both of us do. With your prediction in hand, we could spare each other a lot of time and expense and just say, “well, jmcrae says that it’s about time that we change partners so…farewell old chum. We had good intentions, but the lure of the ‘lifestyle’ is greater than either of us could have predicted–indeed, is greater than either of us is actually fully conscious. It’s time to move on.”

Another point is that homosexual relationships are not life giving. It’s not just the obvious fact that they can’t reproduce, although I think that’s more of a factor than anyone wants to admit, in the fact that they change partners so frequently, and in the fact that they don’t really complement each other’s gifts - they live a lot more like room mates than like husband and wife, even when they are “married” in some sense.

Perhaps our breakup speech should be amended:
Farewell, dear room-mate. I know we’ve shared each others burdens, heartbreaks, joys and sorrows over the last 12 years, built a home and a life together and all that. But really. Really now. Let’s just face facts. We were never actually partners in life. Just room-mates. It’s clear now that what we shared together wasn’t in fact love, but a mere domestic convenience. Your gifts and mine–they were never really complementary. And even though we didn’t have frequent, or any, extra-curricular sexual partners as it were, I’m sure you wanted to. Neither of us can control ourselves. Our commitment to each other was a sham. The good fruit our relationship bore in each of us was nothing more than…produce past it’s prime, rotten and languishing in the supermarket of illicit “love.” We’re homosexuals, after all. How could we know what love is, anyway? We can’t. How can we know and experience the good, anyway? We can’t. How can we be sure that the good we knew was good when we were so sure that it was good was actually good? We can’t. When we grew in virtue together, I’m sure it was just…a nice feeling we had once or twice that we couldn’t identify correctly on account of our intrinisic corruption. We’re homosexual. Our relationship with the good and appropriate objects of affection is compromised by our homosexual disorder. Which is why…jmcrae says that it’s about time that we change partners so…farewell old chum. We had good intentions, but the lure of the ‘lifestyle’ is greater than either of us could have predicted–indeed, is greater than either of us is actually fully conscious. It’s time to move on. I’ll see you in church.
If I could actually bring myself to utter those words to my partner and mean them, I am sure I would be committing an act of blasphemy in the process by labelling something which I know to be good an evil and rotten thing. I would say, jmcrae, that it is your job to explain to me how the virtues that have come from my relationship with my partner by God’s grace are in fact false and dark lights. But I wouldn’t want you to actually engage in a sincere attempt to call evil that which I know to be good.

Suffice to say, jmcrae, that while I cannot deny that your intentions appear good and heartfelt, nonetheless I can assure you that when you talk of all committed homosexual relationships ending without fail within 10 years, that they are characterized by multiple sexual liaisons, are mere room-mate situations, or what have you–when you say these things, it is clear that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[edwest2]

I was under the impression that gay marriage was just like heterosexual marriage. I was wrong.

nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html

God bless,
Ed

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I was under the impression that gay marriage was just like heterosexual marriage. I was wrong.

nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html

Sad to read that. It certainly doesn’t make my position easier to defend! But then, why should everything be easy?

At the very least, I can appreciate their honesty and self-consciousness. Though I don’t share their vision of what a partnership should be (and find it morally questionable, moreover), it’s no more unusual than what many heterosexual marriages become in practice, but often without the honesty. (Perhaps that’s the difference you were referring to, edwest2?) Unfortunately and in any case, it’s an honesty curiously deficient in virtue. I suppose I should have used the word “frankness” instead of honesty.

Regardless, it is not a standard to which any partnership should aspire, and certainly not indicative of all such partnerships.

Sad though.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[edwest2]

There was a time when social and religious pressures meant more. But for some, it’s no rules, just right.

sfbaytimes.com/?sec=article&article_id=12499

God bless,
Ed

 

[jmcrae]

Suffice to say, jmcrae, that while I cannot deny that your intentions appear good and heartfelt, nonetheless I can assure you that when you talk of all committed homosexual relationships ending without fail within 10 years, that they are characterized by multiple sexual liaisons, are mere room-mate situations, or what have you–when you say these things, it is clear that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

I live in a “gay” neighborhood - and believe me when I tell you, the moving company knows our neighborhood really, really well - people are constantly breaking up with their “life partners” and moving new ones in. Every first of the month, without fail, the moving van is blocking some part of our street.

 

[larkin31]

How many people in homosexual relationships do you know who have actually remained with one partner for life? I’m betting not many, unless they are very young, or didn’t get into the lifestyle until later in life…

Is this morality arguiment going to be based on relative relationship recidivism rates? I know very few persons, of whichever orientation, who have married their first lovers. Both sexual orientations have a very checkered past of multiple lovers (and both men and women in hetero marriages are cheating in greater–and more even–numbers).

 

[jmcrae]

Is this morality arguiment going to be based on relative relationship recidivism rates? I know very few persons, of whichever orientation, who have married their first lovers. Both sexual orientations have a very checkered past of multiple lovers (and both men and women in hetero marriages are cheating in greater–and more even–numbers).

It’s not the foundation of my argument, but at the same time, this idyllic world of perfect homosexual relationships does not exist, as experience shows, and I was just pointing that out.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

It’s not the foundation of my argument, but at the same time, this idyllic world of perfect homosexual relationships does not exist, as experience shows, and I was just pointing that out.

I’m very sorry that your experience in your neighborhood has led you to this conclusion. If I may pick apart your statement, though: 1) I never described my relationship with my partner as idyllic–life is not idyllic, that’s just the way life is–to believe otherwise is pure delusion; 2) few relationships, homosexual or heterosexual, are perfect–what obtains here is not the fact of their perfection, however defined, but their struggle to approach it; 3) your statement regarding your experience (which is, as I’ve pointed out, lamentable) is not indicative of all homosexual relationships–while it is possible for us to see a picture of Shanghai or read a description of it and to subsequently claim that we’ve been there and that we’re experts on Chinese culture, our claim would be ill-founded–I do not deny that gay culture, popularly understood, is poisonous in many significant ways (based on my experience), but I refuse (based on my experience!) to understand the values articulated by that culture as universally held by all homosexual people and couples–you, however, seem intent on making this leap in logic. It is not particularly helpful to your credibility.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[jmcrae]

Grace & Peace!

I’m very sorry that your experience in your neighborhood has led you to this conclusion. If I may pick apart your statement, though: 1) I never described my relationship with my partner as idyllic–life is not idyllic, that’s just the way life is–to believe otherwise is pure delusion; 2) few relationships, homosexual or heterosexual, are perfect–what obtains here is not the fact of their perfection, however defined, but their struggle to approach it; 3) your statement regarding your experience (which is, as I’ve pointed out, lamentable) is not indicative of all homosexual relationships–while it is possible for us to see a picture of Shanghai or read a description of it and to subsequently claim that we’ve been there and that we’re experts on Chinese culture, our claim would be ill-founded–I do not deny that gay culture, popularly understood, is poisonous in many significant ways (based on my experience), but I refuse (based on my experience!) to understand the values articulated by that culture as universally held by all homosexual people and couples–you, however, seem intent on making this leap in logic. It is not particularly helpful to your credibility.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Look, I am not saying that there is anyone in my neighborhood who fits the stereotype of the “bath house culture” - they aren’t hanging around in parks, or in bars, (at least not for the most part) and they really do fully intend to be committed to each other. The fact is, though, it isn’t working for them. It’s true that they are no worse than the worst of heterosexuals - but they don’t attain to the good. They don’t make it to the level of the good. That’s all I’m saying.

 

[larkin31]

It’s not the foundation of my argument, but at the same time, this idyllic world of perfect homosexual relationships does not exist,…

No one said it did. Adam and Eve had it far from “idyllic,” too. They produced a murderer in the first generation! Besides all the other toil and pain…

 

[jmcrae]

No one said it did. Adam and Eve had it far from “idyllic,” too. They produced a murderer in the first generation! Besides all the other toil and pain…

But at least they produced their own children.

 

[larkin31]

But at least they produced their own children.

Oooo. That’s icky, seeing as they were made of the same genetic material.