Anglican head Williams says anti-gays misread Bible

[fix]

By this do you mean biological parents?

I mean anyone acting as parents who claim “marriage” when they are the ssame sex.

If so, how does one enforce such a right past conception?

By not allowing such faux unions.

Barring civil marriage for same sex couples does not guarantee that for any child. In order to enforce such a right, one would do better to focus one’s energy on the millions of children affected by heterosexual divorce, death of a parent due to lack of access to health care or unsafe working or living conditons, etc.

Because bad things already happen we should legalize a fiction so more bad things may happen?

If the only legal marriages were those that at least might reasonably be considered likely to produce children (both adults believed to be fertile, of childbearing age and willing to declare their intention to have children), or those that involved a parent with minor children who had lost a parent to death, then I might be a bit more likely to concede that this is the goal of marriage in the eyes of the state. If the guidelines are not applied to heterosexual couples, there is no logical reason to require them of same sex couples.

I am lost here. What does any of that have to do with two people of the same sex pretending to be married?

 

[Titus]

So, as long as this is a civil legal arrangement rather than a religiously sanctioned one, you have no issue with it? Great, then we are in full agreement. Allowing a civil marriage in no way requires, nor can it require in the US, any religion to consider it religiously binding. The Catholic Church already does this on a daily basis with those who are divorced and remarry in a civil ceremony or one performed by another religion. Why is it not a problem to call such remarriages a “marriage” when they are equally invalid in the eyes of the Catholic Church?

No one is asking Catholic clergy (or any clergy for that matter) to perform religious marriages for same sex couples.

No way. That’s what I believe. What I’m talking about is that there ought to be laws that allow a person to specify *anyone *as their next of kin, providing there are safeguards. Then the gay partners can have the legal possibilities of married couples (ie inheritance etc) without anything akin to marriage. I’m not in favour of civil marriage for gays at all.

By the way, thank you for giving such a spirited discussion. I hope I haven’t made you feel unwelcome at all. God bless.

 

[KarenNC]

after years of rampant divorce and co-habitation, that children do not fare as well in non-traditional households.

In what way does cohabitation deny a child the opportunity to be raised by his or her mother and father, if those two individuals are the ones cohabiting?

If you believe that cohabitation in and of itself without the legal benefit of marriage is damaging to a child, why would you deny the person in a same sex marriage who has a child the option of legalizing their relationship rather than forcing them to cohabit? Would it not be more logical to say that since this child exists, it is preferable to legally support a stable loving family unit rather than force them to cohabit? It will not prevent children from being born to or adopted or fostered by same sex couples. Would you not instead want to see them have at least as much of an advantage as the child of divorced heterosexual parents where the parent remarries to be raised in a legally sanctioned relationship?

 

[distracted]

I agree with him. I actually do not feel the bible is sufficient in determining the morality surrounding homosexuality because the authors were not responsing to the same context in which Christians are responding to today- and the difference in contexts in this case is wide enough that I personally feel its worth re-evaluating.

The Bible is not sufficient for a lot of things… That is why we have the Church, an infallible source of God’s absolute truth…

The Church condemns homosexual acts, not homosexuals…

God would not expect us to follow his commands if we were incapable of knowing what they were…

Again, that’s why we have the (one) Church.

i think its the 1st (or 2nd?) chapter of Romans that tells us that we are (therefore) without excuse…

 

[distracted]

Its taken me an unusually long time…but I finally found a sane person on this website

Another thing people miss is that the bible has been translated and manipulated many times. Also I believe if I shared my honest to god no punches pulled opinion of the bible…well most of the users here would try to burn me.

Andd i am sure you define SANE as:

Anyone who agrees with YOU.

 

[distracted]

And finally:

" 13For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them has waxed great before the face of the LORD, and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it."

14And Lot went out and spoke unto his sons-in-law, who married his daughters, and said, “Up, get ye out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city!” But he seemed as one who mocked unto his sons-in-law.

15And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, “Arise, take thy wife and thy two daughters who are here, lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city.”

16And while he lingered, the men laid hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife and upon the hand of his two daughters, the LORD being merciful unto him; and they brought him forth and set him outside the city.

17And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth outside, that he said, “Escape for thy life! Look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain. Escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed!”

18And Lot said unto them, "Oh, not so, my lord.

19Behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast shown unto me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, lest some evil take me, and I die.

20Behold now, this city is near enough to flee unto, and it is a little one. Oh, let me escape thither, (is it not a little one?) and my soul shall live."

21And he said unto him, "See, I have accepted thee concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow this city for which thou hast spoken.

22Hasten thee, escape thither; for I cannot do any thing till thou hast come thither." Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.

23The sun had risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar.

24Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire, from the LORD out of heaven;

25and He overthrew those cities, and all the plain and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground."

Thank you 4 taking the time & trouble to write out these scriptures… People (… i won’t mention names need to read them).

 

[distracted]

No, we don’t do that anymore.
However, we do often wonder why a self-proclaimed agnostic would come to a Catholic forum and be surprised to find folks who uphold the Catholic teaching, especially when they are clearly not interested in open minded discussion.

AAAAMMMMMEEEEENNNN!!!

 

[KarenNC]

No way. That’s what I believe. What I’m talking about is that there ought to be laws that allow a person to specify *anyone *as their next of kin, providing there are safeguards. Then the gay partners can have the legal possibilities of married couples (ie inheritance etc) without anything akin to marriage. I’m not in favour of civil marriage for gays at all.

By the way, thank you for giving such a spirited discussion. I hope I haven’t made you feel unwelcome at all. God bless.

Then let me rephrase: The US Government Reporting Office has found that there are 1138 specific legal benefits that are freely available to married couples that are not available to unmarried couples, regardless of sex of partner. (this is in addition to any state-specific benefits. These are the benefits to which those who are trying to legalize same sex marriage are seeking access.

Which of these do you believe should only be available for free to a marriage vs a civil union? In other words, which specific benefits of the ones listed make it a marriage rather than a civil union if available to same sex couples?

hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Get_Involved1&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=16168

and (an update to the original 1997 report)

hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Civil_unions1&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=16980

 

[distracted]

Ha ha I thought I would get a few people frustrated with that comment let me explain.

I came here for two main reasons.

1. To try to see why I was ever illogic enough to be Catholic (use to be catholic and I was just as faithful as most of you however I was younger and didn’t think for myself)
2. To see the Catholic stand point on my bisexuality (just recently came out of closet to everyone but parents)

btw I’m not going to get into a huge argument since I’m typing this on my ps3

I would bet good money you have never been remotely as faithful 2 the Church as even the most weak Catholic on this forum…

 

[distracted]

The bigger issue here than the sexual desires was that the people of the city were breaching the sacred laws of hospitality by seeking to harm and abuse strangers in their city. The message of the men of the city was certainly not “give us the men in your house so that we can form lifelong consensual committed loving monogamous relationships with them” any more than Lot believed he would be offering up his daughters to loving marriages by giving them to the mob. This, like any form of rape, is not about sex, it is about power and abuse, seeking to harm and humiliate.

Exodus 22:21
21 "Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.

Exodus 23:9
"Do not oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt.

Leviticus 19:33-34
33 " 'When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. 34 The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

Leviticus 24:22
22 You are to have the same law for the alien and the native-born. I am the LORD your God.’ "

Deut. 10: 17-19
17 For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. 18 He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing. 19 And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt.

Deut. 24: 17
17 Do not deprive the alien or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of the widow as a pledge.

Deut. 27
19 “Cursed is the man who withholds justice from the alien, the fatherless or the widow.”
Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”

Deutoronomy, in particular, classes the alien with the widow and the fatherless in many verses as one to be protected and special efforts to be made to ensure fair and compassionate treatment.

(interestingly enough, Deut 27 lists curses for various sorts of prohibited behavior, the above among them, including sexual,—sex with animals, father’s wife, one’s sister, one’s mother-in-law are specifically prohibited but that’s it for the sexual angle.)

 

[distracted]

distracted:
Who are you to say waht the bigger issue of that passage in Genesis is??

God doesn’t destroy entire cities over venial sins (such as lack of hospitality).

God hates homosexuality. Read the first part of Romans (etc…).

What he hates even more is your defiance of him, your rejection of him, refusing to detach yourself from that sin (whether practicing it yourself or leading others to continue in it) and then attempting to justify it with the flimsiest of so-called excuses…

 

[distracted]

What do you think of Lot offering his virgin daughters to the mob…good moral compas there!

The story of Sodom isn’t about same sex relations…it’s about rape…it has no more to do with condemning gay relationships than the incestuous relationship in the next chapter between Lot and his daughters has to do with condemning marriage.

The story is about the violence of a city. It has to do with rape and power…it has more to do with the goings on in a prison between violent inmates who wish to show their dominace over weaker inmates through sexual power and rape than it does with any same sex loving relationship…the story is repeated in Joshua with a few twists and turns of its own.

Ezekiel is a good source as to what the true sin of Sodom is…for anyone who cares to read past Genesis.

 

[KarenNC]

However, we do often wonder why a self-proclaimed agnostic would come to a Catholic forum and be surprised to find folks who uphold the Catholic teaching, especially when they are clearly not interested in open minded discussion.

And,likewise, there are those of us who would wonder why a Catholic would be surprised to find those who do not agree with the Catholic position on the Non-Catholic Religions board, when the stated purpose of the board is to “compare and contrast beliefs.” One’s presence here by definition indicates that one is interested in discussing opposing views.

“Open-minded” does not equate with “agreement.”

 

[distracted]

distracted:
From my understanding, Lot only thought to do this because it seemed 2b the lesser of 2 evils - intended to keep the perverts from defiling the angels sent there by God -

This showed a lack of understanding on his part of God’s higher ways, nothing more…

 

[lak611]

Then let me rephrase: The US Government Reporting Office has found that there are 1138 specific legal benefits that are freely available to married couples that are not available to unmarried couples, regardless of sex of partner. (this is in addition to any state-specific benefits. These are the benefits to which those who are trying to legalize same sex marriage are seeking access.

Which of these do you believe should only be available for free to a marriage vs a civil union? In other words, which specific benefits of the ones listed make it a marriage rather than a civil union if available to same sex couples?

hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Get_Involved1&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=16168

and (an update to the original 1997 report)

hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Civil_unions1&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=16980

None of these benefits should be available to unmarried persons. Gay marriage is clearly condemned by the Bible and the Church. Those of us who are single and heterosexual do not get these benefits either. They are only for married people (one man and one woman–not “same sex”).

 

[distracted]

I find private interpretation nothing more than a form of moral relativism. Anything is justified when we make ourselves the inventer of truth.

That is SO true!!

i know this guy who converted 2 the Catholic faith because his girlfriend was CAtholic. He fell away when they broke up. While he was with her, he was a devout Catholic (seemingly)… Now, he questions this and questions that… accepts this, rejects that…

True, he could have been taught the faith better, but my point is that he was raised Protestant and Protestant relativism dies hard… They seem to be in a perpetual state of questioning… searching…

The world is just TOO used to all these divisions… I guess it’s hard for some to consider that there actually are answers to all our uncertainties… (well, to all the more important ones anyway…).

Either that… (and/or) people just believe what they want to believe…

Hmmmm…

Do you think…???

 

[Publisher]

Who are you to say waht the bigger issue of that passage in Genesis is??

God doesn’t destroy entire cities over venial sins (such as lack of hospitality).

Perhaps you should read Ezekiel…God Himself tell us what the sin of Sodom really was.

God hates homosexuality. Read the first part of Romans (etc…).

What he hates even more is your defiance of him, your rejection of him, refusing to detach yourself from that sin (whether practicing it yourself or leading others to continue in it) and then attempting to justify it with the flimsiest of so-called excuses…

Thankfully, none of us have to fear your displeasure and your dictations on what “God really hates”…I know…“Gods mouth to your ear…”…even so, I do not fear any retribution from such a petty god you claim to speak for. I will defy this god of petty hate and fear from here to eternity.

 

[distracted]

Whether or not homosexuality is a “myth” is very much up for debate.

Regardless, in St. Paul’s day people were not living in same-sex monogmous relationships. Sexuality is seen as something sacred, obviously, and for people who are assumed to be “heterosexual” in orientation to be engaging in illicit and extra-marital activities is condemned, whether or not with people of the same sex.

There was no option for a person interested in the same sex to live as though sexuality was something sacred and reserved for a person whom you want to love and devote your life to. In these societies it was something that could only be done “on the side”.

That is different today. Many gay people look at sexuality as sacred and are completely in line with Church morality- except for the fact that they are gay. The two contexts are not comparable. The bible doesn’t give us the answer this time, i think we need to be able to live with that.

Homosexuality is disgusting and against nature.

Of course, if your nature is messed up, then maybe it seems normal to you…

 

[distracted]

one would do better to focus one’s energy on the millions of children affected by heterosexual divorce

In Massachusetts, where there is gay marriage, the divorce rate between "gay"s is significantly higher than among straights… Of course, even if that weren’t true, there is still no reason to think that homosexuality is natural or normal in the absolute sense…

In other words, just because someone thinks something is right and good and godly, doesn’t necessarily mean it is.

 

[Keikiolu]

Thankfully, none of us have to fear your displeasure and your dictations on what “God really hates”…I know…“Gods mouth to your ear…”…even so, I do not fear any retribution from such a petty god you claim to speak for. I will defy this god of petty hate and fear from here to eternity.

Go for it, dude…!

Since you have no clue as to who God is, you are quite correct to despise that “thing”, that god, that has been proposed to you to be God.

But,… God will be infinitely merciful to you,… and once you figure out that the god you hate, which is put in place of the God that is, by the god you serve, then you’ll see the situation you’re in, and get rid of the nonsense.

Best of luck to you…! Prayin’ for you, dude/dudette…!

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.