Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same-sex “Marriage”

[Elizabeth502]

Where is your science?

Read the many articles on this from many unbiased scientists regarding the development, yes, development, of sexuality. It is not static, not a genetic trait, not an inborn determinism. There are perhaps tendencies. Those tendencies are shaped, modified, cemented, changed, and in some cases even moved in and out of during both adolescence and adulthood. People are born either asexual or polymorphously sexual, depending on how one wants to put it or see it, but sexuality is definitely something that fluctuates with time. I’m not doing your homework for you.

I don’t recall you ever explaining how you chose your orientation. Since you’re so convinced that I chose mine, the converse must also be true and you should be able to describe that process.

I never said orientation was chosen. I said that because part of the eventual settling of attraction (not behavior) is unconscious, subconscious, and preconscious, does not mean that it is inborn. Those are two different animals in the psychology of human development.

Of course it goes underground in places like Iran and Iraq-people get KILLED for being gay over there. It doesn’t stop them from being gay, they simply hide to stay alive. Until Stonewall, gay people were pretty good at hiding in the US too.

The U.S. (open, relatively free compared to many authoritarian cultures) is not Iran or Iraq. Yes, it goes somewhat underground overseas, but when studies have been done unearthing both closeted & uncloseted sexual behavior in certain societies, it has in fact been determined that the real sexual behavior is nevertheless additionally shaped by the culture, because again, early-on influences in the life of a human being are additionally shaped by culture. When “anything goes” (such as cultures very open about sexuality, not limited to our culture), there is a high level of experimentation & variant sexuality expressed both above & under- ground. When, further, behavior (as opposed to attraction) is officially approved of (such as ancient Rome, ancient Greece) & even institutionalized, that gives implied sanction to the behavior in general, which in turn affects the shaping of the individual’s own “orientation,” “preferences,” “lifestyle.”

I’ve never denied that tendencies have an inborn quality to them, but tendencies are fluid in early childhood. There is nothing fixed about them. Same with other eventual habits, preferences, lifestyles, etc. I might have turned out quite different had I other influences around me than I did – & not just with respect to sexuality, but certainly including that. I’m just far more aware of the reality of being shaped than people who have bought the Kool-aid of Sexual Determinism by Birth. I wonder if that’s like Divine Right of Kings.

 

[WillieWonka]

So what happens when gay people come to an “understanding”? Will they fake their sexuality for the rest of their lives? Will they live in sexless and loveless marriages for that understanding? Will they forsake the partner that they love for it?

That is terrible to assume or to even ask.

Lets just leave them alone.

Peace

They will soon be left alone, Notice nobody bothers divorced, remarried, adulturers, or users of birth control? Gays will soon join the list.

 

[buffalo]

I can see that you would think that is true. But if you believe in that law fromt he OT, then why not all the other ones? Why not stone adulterers, why not kill unbelievers, why not murder blasphemers?

You can’t have it both ways, either the old testement is not followed, or it is.

Peace

Homosexual acts are addressed in the NT. In addition to Divine law it violates natural law.

You need to study up on the OT and what it all meant. These atheist talking points have already been addressed over and over on these forums.

 

[WillieWonka]

We might note articles by unbiased scientists giving their opinion are worthless as science. Opinion is not science. Speculation is not science.

We have science when a hypothesis explaining an phenomenon is validatd by experiment, and the experiment is repeatedly replicated.

 

[gearhead]

Homosexual acts are addressed in the NT. In addition to Divine law it violates natural law.

By natural law, do you mean inferring intent from apparent design when it suits us but not when it it’s inconvenient? The same so-called “natural law” that homosexuality violates is also violated by eyeglasses and airplanes.

You need to study up on the OT and what it all meant.

I know what it meant. Or at least I know what Mosaic Law originally meant: it was a code of conduct specifically for the Jewish people.

What the OT means to a Christian depends which Christian you ask.

 

[RyanML]

In a way you are correct. It was found that homosexuality occurs 7 times more in men than in women. Researchers asked why. They noted that we are basically female and men develop masculinity in their early childhood through the interaction with their father after about age 1. Before that the mother bonds the child and the child doesn’t have much use for the father. Then the boy emulates his father and “learns” how to be male.

In fatherless households there is an unusual bond between mother and son that is unhealthy.

The absent father argument is weak at best. What about gay men who have wonderful relationships with their fathers? How are we to account for the millions of children brought up by their single mothers, aunts, or grandmothers who turned out heterosexual?

 

[RyanML]

Homosexual acts are addressed in the NT. In addition to Divine law it violates natural law.

Actually, what St. Paul refers to specifically is depraved acts of prostitution and pagan worship. If you read the New Testament in context instead of proof texting you will find that any time that same sex activity is mentioned it refers to idolatrous worship, prostitution, or rape (in the case of Sodom). Nothing from Scripture can be infered about sexual orientation or same sex love because it is never mentioned.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

So what happens when gay people come to an “understanding”? Will they fake their sexuality for the rest of their lives? Will they live in sexless and loveless marriages for that understanding? Will they forsake the partner that they love for it?

That is terrible to assume or to even ask.

Lets just leave them alone.

Peace

Gay people can, and do choose to follow the teachings of the Church regarding homosexual acts. They’re not any less gay, they have chosen to live celibate lives.

However, that should be a CHOICE for those who wish to remain in the Catholic Church, not something that is mandated by civil law.

 

[buffalo]

Of course you should.

And increasing numbers of Catholics are indeed followng their consciences and voting for gay marriage.

No - they are following the wave of secularism. A conscience of convenience is not an informed conscience.

 

[WillieWonka]

Actually, what St. Paul refers to specifically is depraved acts of prostitution and pagan worship. If you read the New Testament in context instead of proof texting you will find that any time that same sex activity is mentioned it refers to idolatrous worship, prostitution, or rape (in the case of Sodom). Nothing from Scripture can be infered about sexual orientation or same sex love because it is never mentioned.

You mean Jesus didn’t think it was important enough to mention?

 

[gearhead]

No - they are following the wave of secularism. A conscience of convenience is not an informed conscience.

And no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

 

[RyanML]

You mean Jesus didn’t think it was important enough to mention?

Evidently.

 

[RyanML]

No - they are following the wave of secularism. A conscience of convenience is not an informed conscience.

So basically and informed conscience is one that professes something as true because he is told it is true, even if he is not convicted in his heart?

So, for an example, a Baptist would be expected to believe in the Immaculate Conception simply because the Church says it is true, despite the fact that their conscience would tell them it is a false doctrine?

 

[buffalo]

Actually, what St. Paul refers to specifically is depraved acts of prostitution and pagan worship. If you read the New Testament in context instead of proof texting you will find that any time that same sex activity is mentioned it refers to idolatrous worship, prostitution, or rape (in the case of Sodom). Nothing from Scripture can be infered about sexual orientation or same sex love because it is never mentioned.

Here they are - do you need the ECF commentaries, too?

Rom 1;27 - called unnatural, shameful, and a perversity
1Cor 6:9 - active homosexuals won’t inherit kingdom of God
1Tim 1:9-10 - those who engage in such acts called sinners

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. **Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. **29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

 

[RyanML]

Deo Volente had a wonderful post (#659) which no one has responded to yet. I thought it made some very solid points

 

[Elizabeth502]

Gay people can, and do choose to follow the teachings of the Church regarding homosexual acts. They’re not any less gay, they have chosen to live celibate lives.

However, that should be a CHOICE for those who wish to remain in the Catholic Church, not something that is mandated by civil law.

It is not being suggested that private behavior or Church membership be decided or restricted by civil law. It is being discussed (see thread title) that marriage continue to be, as it always has been in this country, subject to civil law & for particular purposes – not random, not universal, not whimsically determined, not artificially seized as an illegitimate “right.”

As an aside, if I were formed by both innate tendencies & subsequent upbringing (they’re ultimately fused at some point) to be oriented toward SSA and believed that I should act on such sexual attraction, I would not stay in the RCC, because I would consider that a form of masochism/self-torture.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

It is not being suggested that private behavior or Church membership be decided or restricted by civil law. It is being discussed (see thread title) that marriage continue to be, as it always has been in this country, subject to civil law & for particular purposes – not random, not universal, not whimsically determined, not artificially seized as an illegitimate “right.”

As an aside, if I were formed by both innate tendencies & subsequent upbringing (they’re ultimately fused at some point) to be oriented toward SSA and believed that I should act on such sexual attraction, I would not stay in the RCC, because I would consider that a form of masochism/self-torture.

It has been very clearly stated that the beliefs of the Roman Catholic church regarding homosexuality and gay marriage should be enshrined in civil law. The basis of the argument against gay marriage here is “The Church says it’s wrong”.

You still haven’t provided any objective scientific evidence to support your claims about the reasons why people are gay, so it’s still opinion. It’s really off-topic though, as has been pointed out so I guess if we want to continue that line of discussion we’ll need to start a new thread.

If the RCC is the one true Church and the only way to salvation, you would still make that choice?

 

[RyanML]

Here they are - do you need the ECF commentaries, too?

Rom 1;27 - called unnatural, shameful, and a perversity
1Cor 6:9 - active homosexuals won’t inherit kingdom of God
1Tim 1:9-10 - those who engage in such acts called sinners

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. **Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. **29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

Again, you’re proof texting. St. Paul is speaking to the Romans about those who forsake the true God for idols “made in the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things.” God gave these idolators over to their depraved actions, that is He deprived them of His grace, because they did not seek after Him but after idols and their own desires.

The sin of Sodom was not homosexuality. You should really spend some time reading the story in Genesis without the bias. The greatest sin of Sodom was their lack of hospitality, which was a highly prized virtue in that time and culture. And even if Sodom’s main sin was homosexual activity, it still has no bearing on loving same sex relationships. The men of Sodom saught to gang rape the angelic visitors. Rape, no matter what your orientation, is depraved. Had the angelic visitors been women and the men of Sodom wanted to gang rape them, would we say that heterosexual acts are sinful? Of course not but you use exactly that logic when reading this story. You also have to take into account the social and cultural aspects. Lot was deemed a just and righteous man but offered his virgin daughters to the mob to appease their sexual appetites. We certainly wouldn’t suggest that that would be approbriate today, now would we?

 

[gearhead]

And even if Sodom’s main sin was homosexual activity, it still has no bearing on loving same sex relationships. The men of Sodom saught to gang rape the angelic visitors. Rape, no matter what your orientation, is depraved. Had the angelic visitors been women and the men of Sodom wanted to gang rape them, would we say that heterosexual acts are sinful? Of course not but you use exactly that logic when reading this story.

I totally agree. I think it’s fundamentally messed up to look at a story of attempted same-sex gang rape and decide that the problem lies in the “same-sex” part and not the “gang rape” part.

 

[AndyF]

What did He say about gays?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5617684#poststop