Anglican head Williams says anti-gays misread Bible

[KarenNC]

Full faith and credit could certainly turn this into a federal issue, and probably will in very short order.

I am not sure what you mean by “full faith and credit” in this context, but it would seem to me that the people attempting to literally “make a federal case about this” are not the ones seeking the right to a civil marriage. True, any group fighting a denial of civil rights unfortunately usually has to turn to the federal government to protect their rights if the states will not honor those rights.

 

[Publisher]

“Perhaps you can answer this question, as I have yet to find someone who can do so. Exactly in what specific way does a monogamous, consenting adult homosexual relationship threaten or undermine any heterosexual marriage?”

I always laught when this arguement is used…my cousins and I were having this discussion…they’re Pentacostal…they said “gay marriage undermines traditional marriage.”…I looked at them and started laughing…they asked “What’s so funny?”…I turned to “Bill” and said…you’ve been married four times…then I turned to “Cindy” and said…“You’ve been married twice and lived with four guys!!!”

Gay people aren’t going to undermine your marriage…your divorces and living together is…they don’t effect you in any way…YOU EFFECT YOU!!! YOU DESTROY MARRIAGE!!! The two lesbians who live down the street are no threat to your marriage…the divorce court is!

 

[KarenNC]

"Gay people aren’t going to undermine your marriage…your divorces and living together is…they don’t effect you in any way…YOU EFFECT YOU!!! YOU DESTROY MARRIAGE!!! The two lesbians who live down the street are no threat to your marriage…the divorce court is!

Bingo! As well as adultery.

 

[blessedtoo]

Perhaps you can answer this question, as I have yet to find someone who can do so. Exactly in what specific way does a monogamous, consenting adult homosexual relationship threaten or undermine any heterosexual marriage?

Gay marriage undermines marriage. You see, it turns out that this decidedly conservative observation is entirely consistent with the views of some of the most influential sociologists in Europe, and their followers here in America. I’ve been quoting and paraphrasing these prominent sociologists to show that I’m far from the only one who connects same-sex marriage with the decline of traditional marriage … Same-sex marriage doesn’t reinforce marriage; instead, it upends marriage, and helps build acceptance for a host of other mutually reinforcing changes like single parenting, parental cohabitation, and multi-partner unions that only serve to weaken marriage. In short, “the queering of the social” , meaning a broad spectrum of family change, including, but not limited to, same-sex partnerships calls into question the normativity and naturalness of “heterorelationality” i.e., traditional marriage. article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTU4NDEzNTY5ODNmOWU4M2Y1MGIwMTcyODdjZGQxOTk=

Gay marriage is part and parcel of a whole new stage of marital decline-a stage still relatively unfamiliar in the United States. In this new stage of marital decline, couples don’t just cohabit before they become parents. Couples cohabit even after they become parents. Because gay marriage helps to break apart the ideas of marriage and parenthood, it is closely associated with this advanced stage of marital decline.

There are three core elements in this new and more radical stage of marital decline: parental cohabitation, the legal equalization of marriage and cohabitation, and gay marriage. My claim is that these three factors are mutually reinforcing. When any of these three factors emerges, the others tend to follow. And they draw out the initial factors still further. article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2QzNDA3YWYwNmZjYWUyMDA4NzI0ODc0YTQ5ZTM1NWQ=

The numbers are in, and the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate has done it again, shooting up a striking 2.5 percentage points. That makes nine consecutive years of average two-percentage-point increases in the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate, a rise unmatched by any country in Western Europe during the same period …

The Netherlands is so important because it provides evidence for an actual acceleration of out-of-wedlock birthrates following the passage of same-sex unions-proof demanded by Eskridge and Spedale, conservative gay marriage advocates. We see this in the Netherlands because, in contrast to Scandinavia, out-of-wedlock birthrates were relatively low in Holland prior to the advent of registered partnerships and gay marriage. So in the Netherlands, we aren’t comparing apples and oranges out-of-wedlock births for second-born children and above, as opposed to first-born children …virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4394

continued…

 

[blessedtoo]

The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound. A recent article in the Weekly Standard described how the advent of legally sanctioned gay unions in Scandinavian countries has already destroyed the institution of marriage, where half of today’s children are born out of wedlock.

It is predicted now, based on demographic trends in this country, that more than half of the babies born in the 1990s will spend at least part of their childhood in single-parent homes.

Social scientists have been surprisingly consistent in warning against this fractured family. If it continues, almost every child will have several “moms” and “dads,” perhaps six or eight “grandparents,” and dozens of half-siblings. It will be a world where little boys and girls are shuffled from pillar to post in an ever-changing pattern of living arrangements-where huge numbers of them will be raised in foster-care homes or living on the street (as millions do in other countries all over the world today). Imagine an environment where nothing is stable and where people think primarily about themselves and their own self-preservation.

With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach that this perversion is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Textbooks, even in conservative states, will have to depict man/man and woman/woman relationships, and stories written for children as young as elementary school, or even kindergarten, will have to give equal space to homosexuals.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.asp

What possible vested interest does the state have in promoting marriage? How does it serve the common good?
If such rights are extended simply to facilitate the mutual affection between two individuals, there is no real benefit to society in such an arrangement. The state is not in the business of making people feel good or subsidizing personal happiness. If that were the case, then any group of people or even business partnerships could claim benefits.
It is exactly because traditional marriage goes far beyond the mutual affection of the two parties that makes it an irreplaceable social good and necessitates the conferring of those 1,049 benefits.
Families not Individuals
Marriage is not about individuals but families. It is an institution that predates the State whereby a man and a woman mutually agree to give themselves to each other until death principally for the sake of the interest of the children born to them.
The State extends benefits not only to make couples happy but to facilitate the often arduous task of creating a stable, affectionate and moral atmosphere for the upbringing of children – the future of civil society.

continued…

 

[blessedtoo]

Thus, it is the procreation and upbringing of children that makes marriage such a social good. The state accordingly invests in marriage between a man and a woman because it knows that it is the ideal and best possible method of insuring its future through the procreation and education of children.
Indeed, traditional marriage is so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. The natural state of marriage is to produce not only children but many children to populate the state.
On the contrary, same-sex unions are so sterile that those who would circumvent nature must employ costly and artificial means or employ surrogates to bring about adoptive children. The natural state of such unions is not to produce any children, much less many children.
Such unions therefore fail to fulfill marriage’s social good since most simply have no interest in either procreating or employing costly artificial substitutes.
Again, the state knows that marriage between a man and a woman is the best possible means of insuring this goal which benefits the common good. Historically, the State has invested heavily in insuring this bond.
The reasons are many. First the children of such unions are normally the flesh and blood of both parents who see their offspring as extensions of themselves. Such unions provide a father and a mother, complimentary role models that perform different functions in child development. The children also can have the added intense affection of numerous siblings of those same parents.
The parties of traditional marriage make a life-long commitment to maintain this bond to provide a stable atmosphere for the children to develop. Moreover, they agree to exercise moral restraint and fidelity to their marriage vows to prevent outside elements from interfering in their union and thus disturb the moral well-being of their offspring.
The experience of centuries gives irrefutable testimony as to how these blood relationships inside a stable moral climate naturally lead to affection and the creation of the best possible conditions for the upbringing of children.
tfp.org/tfc/1049_reasons_to_oppose_same-sex_%5Emarriage%5E.htm

 

[blessedtoo]

I always laught when this arguement is used…my cousins and I were having this discussion…they’re Pentacostal…they said “gay marriage undermines traditional marriage.”…I looked at them and started laughing…they asked “What’s so funny?”…I turned to “Bill” and said…you’ve been married four times…then I turned to “Cindy” and said…“You’ve been married twice and lived with four guys!!!”

We will not be reinforcing or supporting successful marriages if we deconstruct and devalue them even further with same-sex marriages. Two wrongs…

 

[KarenNC]

We will not be reinforcing or supporting successful marriages if we deconstruct and devalue them even further with same-sex marriages. Two wrongs…

Exactly and specifically how does a same sex marriage “deconstruct” a successful heterosexual marriage? How does it “devalue” it? Last I heard no-one was planning to require heterosexual couples to divorce in order to enter into same sex marriages. No one was planning to say that a heterosexual couple cannot marry just as they have always done. I simply do not see that a same sex couple getting married would threaten my marriage any more than another heterosexual couple getting married. The two are simply not interrelated.

 

[urban-hermit]

Exactly and specifically how does a same sex marriage “deconstruct” a successful heterosexual marriage? How does it “devalue” it? Last I heard no-one was planning to require heterosexual couples to divorce in order to enter into same sex marriages. No one was planning to say that a heterosexual couple cannot marry just as they have always done. I simply do not see that a same sex couple getting married would threaten my marriage any more than another heterosexual couple getting married. The two are simply not interrelated.

I see where you’re having difficulty. You need to think “big picture”, not just your own marriage, but the choices your children and their generation will make, as that is the future of society, the same society which rewards marriage for sustaining it. Make any sense?

 

[urban-hermit]

As far as the original article goes, Williams does not seem to grasp the difference between “judging others” and judging actions which threaten society.

This man is the leader of 77 million Christians?

I think they need to find a new CEO. He is not acting in the interests of his people. Maybe he doesn’t understand them?

He seems to think (as most gay marriage apologists seem to) that those who oppose enshrining gay sex acts on equal par with the time-tested and evolutionarily sound traditional marriage act are simply indulging their love of telling other people what to do - or “castigating” them. I can only speak for myself: I am fighting as hard as I can against gay marriage, and I can think of PLENTY of things to do with my time and energy that would be more fun for me personally. It’s just that this threatens the future of society, that’s all.

NEITHER SIDE WINS

Williams said reinterpreting Paul’s epistle as a warning against smug self-righteousness rather than homosexuality would favor neither side over the other in the bitter struggle that threatens to plunge the Anglican Communion into schism.

It would not help pro-gay liberals, he said, because Paul and his readers clearly agreed that homosexuality was “as obviously immoral as idol worship or disobedience to parents.”

This reading would also upset anti-gay conservatives, who have been “up to this point happily identifying with Paul’s castigation of someone else,” and challenge them to ask whether they were right to judge others, he added.

“This does nothing to settle the exegetical questions fiercely debated at the moment,” Williams said.

But he said a “strictly theological reading of Scripture” would not allow a Christian to denounce others and not ask whether he or she were also somehow at fault.

Again, to “denounce others” is very different from firmly telling those same others that they may not re-define the meaning of the word “marriage” for the whole of society.

I’m with fix (I think it was fix who asked something along the lines of…) What exactly is Williams saying? What is he advocating, in his role as leader? Doing nothing? Reserving judgment while people fundamentally re-define the most important family relationship, marriage?

 

[blessedtoo]

Exactly and specifically how does a same sex marriage “deconstruct” a successful heterosexual marriage? How does it “devalue” it? Last I heard no-one was planning to require heterosexual couples to divorce in order to enter into same sex marriages. No one was planning to say that a heterosexual couple cannot marry just as they have always done. I simply do not see that a same sex couple getting married would threaten my marriage any more than another heterosexual couple getting married. The two are simply not interrelated.

Karen,
I guess you didn’t read any of the responses I posted to answer this question. Perhaps you could go back and read them thoroughly and we can pick up the discussion on another thread, since this one is not about same-sex “marriage”. I would be happy to continue this discussion with you there.

 

[CCM08]

No, I am asking if this is the group that you meant. I had never heard of it before.

I’m sorry, but if you lack the common sense to figure out if I’m referring to the a racist organization when talking about racial policy affecting tax and religious status or some neo-hippy group then there’s really no discussion to be had.

I think the actions of the leader, Matthew Hale, and some of his followers certainly speak for themselves in whether the label is correct. It is not one I made up–the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League certainly label it so, as well as many other things.

Thus if some pagans are violent and burn down churches I can assume they all do? Both the ADL and the SPLC have some character problems of their own, do so research on the way Morris Dee’s “charity.”

Excuse me? Where have I said this has never happened? Until I can determine exactly which group you mean, how in the world can I even attempt to verify your statements about it? If you would provide supporting information, that might be helpful.

Never mind, you obviously have absolutely no background knowledge on any of these subjects and lack basic common sense. This is just going to become an uncharitable exchange.

 

[hosemonkey]

Exactly and specifically how does a same sex marriage “deconstruct” a successful heterosexual marriage? How does it “devalue” it? Last I heard no-one was planning to require heterosexual couples to divorce in order to enter into same sex marriages. No one was planning to say that a heterosexual couple cannot marry just as they have always done. I simply do not see that a same sex couple getting married would threaten my marriage any more than another heterosexual couple getting married. The two are simply not interrelated.

Because you are some variety of “neo-pagan” you are not held accountable for the Church’s teaching regarding the inherent disorder of homosexual orientation. Homosexual orientation is not inherently sinful, but homosexual genital activity is. Therefore homosexual “marriage” would include homosexual genital activity, rendering the whole mess totally sinful. Call it what you will, it ain’t marriage.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

Mat 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

 

[lak611]

God’s word is clear that same sex relations goes against God’s intended pourpose for sex, and that settles it for me. It;s obvious to me that you have your own motives for calling the scriptures into question. Satan also tried to cast doubt on what God said:

“…Yea, hath God said…?”

From the NASB: “1Co 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
1Co 6:10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.”

 

[Chris_LaRock]

Besides that, both same sex reproduction and oppisite sex reproduction would be possible if homosexual sex was approved of by God.

 

[The_Truthinator]

Besides that, both same sex reproduction and oppisite sex reproduction would be possible if homosexual sex was approved of by God.

Good point. I know a few people who struggle with homosexuality, some I NEVER would have guessed, but they are godly people who know that there is a different lifestyle for them that they’ve been called to and who genuinely try to please God in all areas of life–including in sexuality. And yes, as 1 Cor. 6, Jude’s comment in verse 7 on Sodom and Gomorrah (and thus Gen. 19, as well), Lev. 18, and Rom. 1 would agree, homosexuality (though perhaps the desires themselves not being sinful, but rather what comes from them) is contrary to God’s plan, and biology is a testament to this.

However, I think this Anglican man and many conservative Christians miss the point of Romans 1. It was not necessarily about civil disobedience or homosexuality primarily, but rather, there is a verse there at the core of it all: “So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.” It was about putting creation before Creator, pleasure and worldly things before God.

God is neuter, being Spirit. God is masculine in God’s justice and anger and vengence, but feminine in God’s caring and love and mercy … Only when these aspects of the Divine character come together is there really a complete, whole God. Likewise, the Son, that second person of the Trinity, is composed of not just Yeshua Messiah, the masculine, but also, the Church, his Bride, the feminine. Only when these come together is there the Son.

In being created to bear the Image of God, humans desire to be like their Creator in all these aspects, and so the masculine man seeks his feminine half, and the feminine woman, her masculine half. And these two are “united into one.”

 

[Tonks40]

Good point. I know a few people who struggle with homosexuality, some I NEVER would have guessed, but they are godly people who know that there is a different lifestyle for them that they’ve been called to and who genuinely try to please God in all areas of life–including in sexuality. And yes, as 1 Cor. 6, Jude’s comment in verse 7 on Sodom and Gomorrah (and thus Gen. 19, as well), Lev. 18, and Rom. 1 would agree, homosexuality (though perhaps the desires themselves not being sinful, but rather what comes from them) is contrary to God’s plan, and biology is a testament to this.

However, I think this Anglican man and many conservative Christians miss the point of Romans 1. It was not necessarily about civil disobedience or homosexuality primarily, but rather, there is a verse there at the core of it all: “So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.” It was about putting creation before Creator, pleasure and worldly things before God.

God is neuter, being Spirit. God is masculine in God’s justice and anger and vengence, but feminine in God’s caring and love and mercy … Only when these aspects of the Divine character come together is there really a complete, whole God. Likewise, the Son, that second person of the Trinity, is composed of not just Yeshua Messiah, the masculine, but also, the Church, his Bride, the feminine. Only when these come together is there the Son.

In being created to bear the Image of God, humans desire to be like their Creator in all these aspects, and so the masculine man seeks his feminine half, and the feminine woman, her masculine half. And these two are “united into one.”

Nicely said! You practically sounded Catholic here!

 

[KarenNC]

I’m sorry, but if you lack the common sense to figure out if I’m referring to the a racist organization when talking about racial policy affecting tax and religious status or some neo-hippy group then there’s really no discussion to be had…Never mind, you obviously have absolutely no background knowledge on any of these subjects and lack basic common sense. This is just going to become an uncharitable exchange.

You are correct. I lacked the common sense to be discerning in which posts to engage.

 

[KarenNC]

Likewise, the Son, that second person of the Trinity, is composed of not just Yeshua Messiah, the masculine, but also, the Church, his Bride, the feminine. Only when these come together is there the Son.

Interesting take on this and new to me–so you believe that without the worship of humans, Jesus would not be fully divine, that the divinity only exists in the intersection of Jesus and humanity? Is there a threshold for the Son to exist, ie is the divinity either fully there because there is one worshipper and not there with none, or is it variable depending on how many people worship? If Jesus is not fully God independent of human worship, I would be interested in how you view his independent nature.