Linux
**
I am worried about it, because you are helping to push the image that the Church hates Gay people and is prejudice.**
I am not helping the Church to push the image that the Church hates sodomites. I am pushing (if anything) the fact that sodomy is a sin and those who commit it ought to acknowledge they are sinners. This is a loving concern of the Church for those who may throw their souls away in sin. The sodomite needs to acknowledge who he is. He doesn’t acknowledge that when he uses a silly and phoney word like “gay” to describe his sin. The first step to salvation is for all of us to acknowledge that we are sinners. Changing the language does not change the sin. We all know what sodomy means. Why does the word have to be changed … to make sodomites feel better … less sinful … less judged?
We are all going to be judged in the end for our sins. God is not going to ask the sodomite if he was gay? St. Paul doesn’t call sodomites gay. St. Paul was not afraid of the truth. He did not candy-coat it by using a silly word like gay.
What in God’s name is the problem with facing the truth and using the language that is truthful? Is truth hateful? Is being truthful also being hateful? Well, anyone who says it is is just denying the truth and has no intention of dealing with it. These people need to grow up and accept Christ, not Satan.
**Calling the gay community sodomites is not going to help people understand the churches Moral position on the matter. **
Calling them “gay” is even less likely to help people understand the Church’s moral position. It is only going to help people believe they are really gay rather than really sad.
Hmm…anyone would think sodomy was a worse crime than heterosexual rape, the way you speak about it. And, yes, the way you ‘speak the truth’ is hateful - because you speak it in a way that not only implies, but actively states that
you find particular actions hateful, even though they may be perfectly consensual and, in themselves, harmless to the consenting participants. And, frankly, using St Paul as an example of honesty and inclusivity is entirely counterproductive - indeed, it might be said that he protested too much.
Looking back at the history of heterosexual marriage, it has been used and abused as a means to justify coldly capitalistic property exchanges and also - as I hinted above - rape. It was, until very, very recently, considered impossible for a husband to rape his wife, because she was considered to have given perpetual consent to sex via the marriage vow.
Don’t pretend that marriage is some kind of hallowed ideal that is being ‘violated’ by the inclusion of homosexual couples. It’s a social institution that has undergone manifold changes throughout its history, and recognising gay and lesbian unions as marriages is just one more change. The core concept of marriage - that of lifelong commitment, of sharing life’s ongoing struggles and achievements - doesn’t change. Opposition to gay marriage is, at root, nothing more than an irrational (and mutable) gut reaction to something that certain sections of society have been schooled from infancy to believe is ‘disordered’, even though it has stood the test of time, and even though it is a source of great joy and fulfilment to many who instinctively practise it - and would be more so, if there weren’t people like you who tried to paint homosexual couples as biologically dysfunctional and morally degenerate.
