Homosexual Acts are Not Against the Natural Law

[Thorolfr]

Except that’s not what 11:7 says. It says, “For it is not helpful for a man to have his head covered, since the likeness and glory of God is already in him; but woman is the glory of man.” (My own translation, though you can find variants of this translation in many Bibles).

Whatever that means, it does not mean that woman is made in the likeness of man, nor that woman is a reflection of man.

That still doesn’t change the fact that women are presented as being inferior to men. The King James versions says, “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”

The Douay-Rheims version says, “The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man.”

The New Living Translation says, “A man should not wear anything on his head when worshiping, for man is made in God’s image and reflects God’s glory. And woman reflects man’s glory.”

Thomas Aquinas also thought that women are inferior to men based on Bible passages:

In several passages in the Summa Theologiae and elsewhere, Thomas Aquinas asserts that the inferiority of women lies not just in bodily strength but in force of intellect. To top this off, he maintains that feminine intellectual inferiority actually contributes to the order and beauty of the universe.

To begin to understand his position, we must ask why Aquinas thinks women intellectually inferior in the first place. Scripture is likely his first guide. St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:10 that “man was not created for the sake of woman, but woman was created for the sake of man.” This passage echoes Genesis 2:18,19: “It is not good that the man should be alone. I will give him a helpmate.” Aquinas reasons from these scriptural passages that when one thing exists for the sake of another, it is inferior to that other. Other passages indicate more clearly that the intelligence is the seat of woman’s divinely ordained inferiority. When in 1 Corinthians 11:3 St. Paul says that “man is the head of woman,” and in Ephesians 5:22 that “a husband is the head of his wife,” Aquinas takes it as evident that if men are meant to rule, it can only be by virtue of intellectual superiority.

Aquinas’ views on female inferiority were doubtless influenced as well by Aristotle’s reproductive biology, with its understanding of the relation between male and female as one of active (perfect) principle to passive (imperfect) principle. Aristotle saw the sperm as the formative agent; the mother simply supplied raw material to be incorporated into the developing child. He also thought the sperm was directed to producing only male offspring, and that when this did not result it was because something interfered with the active principle within the sperm.

In addition to the testimony of Scripture and biology, Aquinas probably took female intellectual inferiority to be plain enough from experience. He points out, for example, that shysters prey on widows in preference to men because “men are wiser and more discerning, and not so quickly taken in.” He encourages widows to turn to prayer in their desolation, lest woman’s “softness of soul” lead them to pamper themselves, an occasion of serious sin. He also notes the difficulty women have in sticking to their decisions, and how quickly they can change their minds out of desire, anger, or fear.

firstthings.com/article/1999/12/what-aquinas-really-said-about-women

 

[Rau]

And God made them male and female saying be fruitful and multiply. Impossible for a same sex couple isn’t it?

Or for the members of a monastery. Choosing not to multiply is not of itself problematic. What would be problematic is if they felt the need to bond by means of sexual acts!

 

[Peter_Plato]

Peter Plato, you make a good point in your last paragraph. However, Thorolfr also makes a good point in noting the patriarchal culture of ancient times that must have had at least some influence on both Jewish and Christian theology.

The question, however, is, “Which came first the patriarchy or the theology?” In other words, was the culture patriarchical as a result of God’s influence on the culture, or was it the patriarchal nature of the culture that influenced the Judaic culture’s view of God?

Either God actually and directly influenced Jewish culture in its historical development – in which case the culture was patriarchal as a result of God’s influence – or the culture simply contrived God after its own image.

If you wish to insist on the latter, you are free to do so, but that would seem to deny whatever legitimate theological claims come from Judaism. God was not, then, actually or directly involved in Jewish history, but only presumed by the Jews (and Israelites that preceded them) to have been.

That would be a baffling theological admission to allow since it renders null virtually all theological claims that can be made about God from Judaism (along with much of Christianity.)

 

[LisaA]

Or for the members of a monastery. Choosing not to multiply is not of itself problematic. What would be problematic is if they felt the need to bond by means of sexual acts!

True but also look at the context…male and female He created them and said “be fruitful and mulitply” In doing so he was not speaking JUST to Adam or JUST to Eve but to them as a couple. A couple is created to “be fruitful and multiply” because they are the only possible source of new life. A single man or a single woman is not so instructed. Interesting how the oldest of God’s instruction to His creation is applicable today…you were created in such fashion to bond to the opposite sex in order to create new life. These body parts were not created for entertainment and pleasure only and thus the prohibition against non-marital sexual expression and against use of artificial birth control. God knew human nature and the way it could be perverted. Nothing has changed has it?

 

[meltzerboy]

The question, however, is, “Which came first the patriarchy or the theology?” In other words, was the culture patriarchical as a result of God’s influence on the culture, or was it the patriarchal nature of the culture that influenced the Judaic culture’s view of God?

Either God actually and directly influenced Jewish culture in its historical development – in which case the culture was patriarchal as a result of God’s influence – or the culture simply contrived God after its own image.

If you wish to insist on the latter, you are free to do so, but that would seem to deny whatever legitimate theological claims come from Judaism. God was not, then, actually or directly involved in Jewish history, but only presumed by the Jews (and Israelites that preceded them) to have been.

That would be a baffling theological admission to allow since it renders null virtually all theological claims that can be made about God from Judaism (along with much of Christianity.)

I’m not sure it need be an either-or situation. Maybe some of the ancient Jewish INTERPRETATIONS of G-d were based on cultural preferences of the day, but that doesn’t necessarily nullify the moral commandments of G-d per se, in my view. Admittedly, though, it presents a challenging perspective and context, but, I would think, a part of theological history that must be investigated (and probably has been) and taken into account relative to the doctrines of all three Abrahamic religions.

 

[Jaaanosik]

The transfer of genetic material isn’t IRRELEVANT. The transfer is ENTIRELY relevant because the existence of a new human being depends upon it but the manner in which genetic material is presented or made available may or may not be relevant depending upon the control mechanisms available to each of the individuals involved. Hence, making eggs available may not be morally relevant in the same way that making sperm available is because one is not accomplished in the same manner as the other. That is the only point to be made in that regard.

It isn’t that transfer of genetic material is NOT relevant, it is that the manner in which genetic material is made available by each party differs with regard to moral agency, therefore the relevancy is not the same between male and female.

Is this the Church’s teaching?
Do you have a document?

 

[Jaaanosik]

As I said, it was not brought up in the context of morality, but in the context of our human design. Others argued that some persons are designed by God with the intention that they engage in same sex acts. Others argued that the real point of sex is “bonding” “full stop”. Sex assists bonding, so 2 men having sex is properly ordered.

These explanations or justifications of reality make no sense to me for the reasons I have set out in several posts.

Homosexual acts are outside of marriage. That’s immoral.
Even heterosexual acts outside of marriage are immoral.
The marriage is between a man and a woman.
What else is needed?

 

[Rau]

Homosexual acts are outside of marriage. That’s immoral.
Even heterosexual acts outside of marriage are immoral.
The marriage is between a man and a woman.
What else is needed?

OK. Those principles / beliefs are widely held here.

However, to quote them does not address the lines of argument put by other posters which aim to arrive at or justify a different set of beliefs.

Some posters are atheists. Some view man as not more than a highly evolved animal. One belongs to a Church (Lutheran ELCA) that itself acknowledges it can’t decide whether homosexual relations are a good or not, and has identified 3 or 4 “positions” that subsets of the Church members hold. [One of those positions seems quite like the Catholic position, but another would see same sex marriage as a wholly good thing.]

Thus - quoting principles such as you list would be like speaking another language.

 

[JimG]

Homosexual acts are outside of marriage. That’s immoral.
Even heterosexual acts outside of marriage are immoral.
The marriage is between a man and a woman.
What else is needed?

That about sums it up.

I would add that the fact that humanity is composed of male and female is not any kind of theological interpretation. It is a fact of nature.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

That still doesn’t change the fact that women are presented as being inferior to men. The King James versions says, “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”

The Douay-Rheims version says, “The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man.”

The New Living Translation says, “A man should not wear anything on his head when worshiping, for man is made in God’s image and reflects God’s glory. And woman reflects man’s glory.”

“I tell you, the greatest among you is the one who becomes the servant of all.”

The beauty of woman is unsurpassed in all creation; she imitates Jesus Christ more perfectly than man, because she lowers herself more completely than man. This is why the most dignified and holy child of man and woman in the history of the world is a woman: Mary. If the Scriptures had emphasized the equality of woman, women would have been encouraged to “claim” that place – and in claiming that place, they cease to be who God made them to be.

The place of woman in relation to man is the place of Jesus in relation to the Father. Jesus

who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.

 

[Rau]

Hey Thor,

My last post made me think…noting your Church is non-committal on the goodness or otherwise of homosexual sexual relationships, and has identified (documented) a number of positions as being prevalent in the Church - one of which more or less lines up with the Catholic one - how would you react should your Church move decisively towards that Catholic-like position?

 

[Thorolfr]

Hey Thor,

My last post made me think…noting your Church is non-committal on the goodness or otherwise of homosexual sexual relationships, and has identified (documented) a number of positions as being prevalent in the Church - one of which more or less lines up with the Catholic one - how would you react should your Church move decisively towards that Catholic-like position?

I don’t see that happening because the ELCA does not have a hierarchical authority structure like that of the Roman Catholic Church. Decisions about how welcoming to be to LGBT people, whether to call a woman or a gay man as a pastor, whether to marry a gay or lesbian couple, etc. all reside with the local congregation or its pastor. As one book I have says, the ELCA is a “denomination created by merger in 1988 whose power over the congregations’s affairs is relatively slight.”

 

[Crow_and_dove]

The question, however, is, “Which came first the patriarchy or the theology?” In other words, was the culture patriarchical as a result of God’s influence on the culture, or was it the patriarchal nature of the culture that influenced the Judaic culture’s view of God?

Either God actually and directly influenced Jewish culture in its historical development – in which case the culture was patriarchal as a result of God’s influence – or the culture simply contrived God after its own image.

If you wish to insist on the latter, you are free to do so, but that would seem to deny whatever legitimate theological claims come from Judaism. God was not, then, actually or directly involved in Jewish history, but only presumed by the Jews (and Israelites that preceded them) to have been.

That would be a baffling theological admission to allow since it renders null virtually all theological claims that can be made about God from Judaism (along with much of Christianity.)

If the alternative is worshipping a patriarchal God, I would choose bafflement, and even damnation, over that. I would truly rather burn at the hands of such an oppressive being than participate in and justify the subjugation of half my species.

Ya’ll can yell at me for that if you want to.

 

[Rau]

I don’t see that happening because the ELCA does not have a hierarchical authority structure like that of the Roman Catholic Church. Decisions about how welcoming to be to LGBT people, whether to call a woman or a gay man as a pastor, whether to marry a gay or lesbian couple, etc. all reside with the local congregation or its pastor. As one book I have says, the ELCA is a “denomination created by merger in 1988 whose power over the congregations’s affairs is relatively slight.”

So the congregation in one town may teach the reverse of that in the next town. So, one really has to nominate the congregation to define the complete belief system.

 

[Rau]

If the alternative is worshipping a patriarchal God, I would choose bafflement, and even damnation, over that. I would truly rather burn at the hands of such an oppressive being than participate in and justify the subjugation of half my species.

Ya’ll can yell at me for that if you want to.

Since you know that God is not an evil being, and since you know that half of your species is not suffering subjugation, where does that leave you?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Regarding point 1, not only were gays and Lesbians interested in adopting, they (or their supporters) were able to get laws changed that put them on par with married couples as to adopting. As a result, many faith based adoption agencies were prevented from continuing to offer adoption services. I think this is wrong and not in the best interests of the child.

Regarding #2, also white homosexual males in a partnership generally have two income earners, again as you said with a higher educational level, a higher income.

So one person complains that gay people aren’t interested adoption, another complains that they are too interested in adoption.

My point was that other than white gay men LGBT people are not wealthier.

Perhaps by that reasoning in that one is not born with mature sex organs nor the hormones that coincide with sexual maturity. On the other hand we are BORN male or female and thus ordered (designed) to have an opposite sex partner from a physical perspective. This is obvious from birth (with rare exceptions where a child is born with secondary sexual characteristics of both…very very rare).

It rather leads to the conclusion that something before or during sexual maturation is influential in what is found to be sexually attractive. Further most gays and Lesbians have been or continue to have attraction for both sexes albeit a stronger attraction to the same sex.

But if we are born any “way” it is to be paired with an opposite sex partner.

Sure, if we consider bisexuals to be gays and lesbians.

… from last.

The point to be taken from the above is that a marriage is a comprehensive union of mind, body and soul between a man and woman with the intention that their union be actualized in space and time by the creation of new life (lives) that embody the bond of love between them.

Marriage is not a union of souls and the union of minds is also a dubious proposition.

“I tell you, the greatest among you is the one who becomes the servant of all.”

The beauty of woman is unsurpassed in all creation; she imitates Jesus Christ more perfectly than man, because she lowers herself more completely than man. This is why the most dignified and holy child of man and woman in the history of the world is a woman: Mary. If the Scriptures had emphasized the equality of woman, women would have been encouraged to “claim” that place – and in claiming that place, they cease to be who God made them to be.

The place of woman in relation to man is the place of Jesus in relation to the Father. Jesus

Interesting.

 

[Xeyed818]

Hi, All ~

Just watched this video of a program on TV that I only caught the last couple of minutes of and found intriguing.

The speaker is Robert Gagnon (“Homosexuality and the Bible”). In case the video doesn’t work, this talk is near the bottom of the list.

The part that I wanted to share is his acute insight (to me) between what Jesus was demonstrating and Pharisee interpretation. It starts at 13:00 min.

purepassion.us/index.php/component/k2/item/76-pure-passion-freedom-from-sexual-sin-brokenness

Jesus Loves us All.

PJ

 

[ericc]

And God made them male and female saying be fruitful and multiply. Impossible for a same sex couple isn’t it?

Bottom line is that a SSA pair will be extinct in one generation, unless they top up the population from a heterogeneous population. Which mean survival of the SSA population is parasitic. it contributes nothing to the human race production wise. Not against natural law? How could one believe that? And in order to make sure that SSA population survive , it has to promote that SSA is OK, is natural,generates happiness,and provide the legal and social environment etc except they have to make sure the marketing isn’t too effective otherwise that would doom the human race if everyone ended up SSA. If that happens, then they have to do reverse marketing and that the pursuit of personal happiness is not as simple as it sounds. Imagine world population 80% SSA and relying on the 20% to maintain the human race. Something is very very unnatural here.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Bottom line is that a SSA pair will be extinct in one generation, unless they top up the population from a heterogeneous population. Which mean survival of the SSA population is parasitic. it contributes nothing to the human race production wise. Not against natural law? How could one believe that? And in order to make sure that SSA population survive , it has to promote that SSA is OK, is natural,generates happiness,and provide the legal and social environment etc except they have to make sure the marketing isn’t too effective otherwise that would doom the human race if everyone ended up SSA. If that happens, then they have to do reverse marketing and that the pursuit of personal happiness is not as simple as it sounds. Imagine world population 80% SSA and relying on the 20% to maintain the human race. Something is very very unnatural here.

Marketing? :ehh: Really?

I also couldn’t compose a better example of queening out. It’s like the anti-gay version of The Handmaid’s Tale.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If the alternative is worshipping a patriarchal God, I would choose bafflement, and even damnation, over that. I would truly rather burn at the hands of such an oppressive being than participate in and justify the subjugation of half my species.

Ya’ll can yell at me for that if you want to.

I suppose that would be because fatherhood just is evil and having expectations just is pernicious.

Nothing like a balanced view of the world.

No yelling, just that you really should have that jaundice medically checked since views that arise from it cannot be treated by reason and logic.

Speaking of bafflement, a world view that says a mother can kill her child rather than care for him/her is somehow always morally superior to one where a father can have defined and clear expectations of his children baffles and confounds me. I suppose you would have no qualms with such a world view, however. Is that correct?

Consider the question a bit of diagnostic probing and nothing more. I am pretty sure you would choose “bafflement and even damnation” to anything I would be able to offer, even if what I did offer was clear and compelling.