how does gay marriage harm society?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Big_Dummy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Big_Dummy said:
how does gay marriage harm society?

oldsite.alliancedefensefund.org/userdocs/How_SSM_Affects_Your_Marriage.pdf

impactapologetics.com/product.asp?cookiecheck=yes&P_ID=288&strPageHistory=related

impactapologetics.com/product.asp?P_ID=937&numRecordPosition=2&strPageHistory=cat&strKeywords=&strSearchCriteria=&PT_ID=87

amazon.com/Queer-Thing-Happened-America-Strange/dp/0615406092/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1306770221&sr=1-1
Click to expand...
It would appear that the referenced articles (three of four I could access) make the point well:
Gay marriage is un-natural, a “construct” to make homosexual unions more “respectable”.

It seems to me, in observing the few close homosexual friends I have (had; three dead) in my life, that homosexuals need constant reassurance that they are “right”, that they are “okay”. Those who are Catholic and lead a celibate life are most troubled that other Catholics will recognize their proclivity and denigrate them in some way. That being said, we, as a Church, have not been real successful in promoting heterosexual chastity. Because we do not speak out firmly about male-female relationships, we seem tongue-tied when it comes to speaking about same-sex attraction. We fail, often, in my mind, to denounce the sin, but welcome the sinner to confession and repentance and community, in that exact order.

If I may, let me separate homosexuals into two groups: One group, like most of us, try to live a life of quiet competence, sometimes frustrated by being labeled homosexual, but generally respectful of what used to be called cultural norms and those who espouse them. The second group contain the outspoken purveyors of a “new” normalcy, fueled sometimes by politics, sometimes by hatred of opponents, sometimes by a perceived need for everyone to approve their lifestyle. The former go about their private, work and spiritual lives much as the rest of the world. The latter become bullies, often assisted by sympathizers in the media who may or may not be guided by ulterior motives. These bullies have an “agenda”, and it must be accomplished by any and all means. It is not a civil rights situation, like women’s suffrage, or black prejudice. Present laws, according to the bullies, must not only protect homosexuals, they must be reformed to affirm a homosexual lifestyle, almost to flaunt it. They have come far; look at what is taught in our schools, shown on TV, marched in St. Patrick Day parades.

I don’t like bullies….of any kind. My political representatives understand my point of view. Whether they bow to the bullies, like the fiasco from the King and Spalding law firm in the DOMA case, is unknown at present. Part of the solution to dealing with the bullies will depend on how reasonable people present their reasonable demands for protection of all citizens’ rights….not just those of a vocal and disruptive few.

My thoughts mirror the position of the Church: hate the sin, love the sinner.
 
I read a book by Carl Zimmerman (a mid 20th century Harvard Sociologist) called “Family and Civilization” and I highly recommend it.

amazon.com/Family-Civilization-Prof-Carle-Zimmerman/dp/1933859377/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1306775719&sr=8-1

Zimmerman compares western civilization to both ancient Greek and ancient Roman civilizations drawing parallels between the family structure and the status of the civilization. Civilizations start off with “trustee families”. Trustee families are clannish, people identify themselves strongly as members of a family, societies are made up of many families living in the same region, If a person owes a debt other family members feel it’s their duty to help pay the debt, if you harm someone from my family there will be serious “blood vengeance” . The west had trustee families from the fall of Rome till about the 11th century . After many centuries the trustee families morph into “domestic families” which isn’t so brutal and is the family values of early church fathers like Jerome and Augustine and later church doctors like Aquinas. Domestic families are conducive to a growing and healthy civilization. Civilizations are at their peak when the domestic family is the trend, for example Pericles’ Funeral Oration demonstrates the domestic family values of Greece when they were the super power around the time of the Peloponnesian War. Just a few centuries later when Greece was in decline and Rome was on the rise, Greece had lost the domestic family while Rome had just turned into domestic families. In Western Europe, from around the end of the dark ages to the enlightenment, the church would intervene between warring families, sometimes compensating one family to stop the violence. In this way the Church helped to bring the domestic family to prominence and helped the state to develop and gain power, no longer being irrelevant among family disputes. This allowed commerce and trade to grow and helped society become more civilized and culminated in the enlightenment.

The domestic family is the mean between 2 extremes. On the one hand there is brutal primitive trustee familism that focuses almost too heavily on the group. On the other hand the Atomistic family comes about as a way to free the individual from the duties of the group, individual freedom is cherished more than family duties. In Rome around the 1st century A.D. and in Greece around the 4th century B.C. the family structures started to become atomistic. In Rome there was the “dignitas” marriage (a more traditional, serious, sacred, lifelong commitment, form of marriage) and the “concubinatus” marriage ( a less stringent, more lax, voidable marriage). The upper class adopted the concubinatus form of marriage, marrying and divorcing as they please whenever they want a new partner. After a while it trickled down to the lower class and fewer people had the dignitas marriage when they saw everyone around them having a less strict more convenient form of marriage. During the atomistic times, divorce, adultery, birth control, homosexuality, venereal diseases, and other things become widespread or widely accepted.
In Rome, “ women were known not for the number of their years, but for the number of their husbands” says Zimmerman.

Polybius around 200 B.C. describes the Greek situation, “In our time the whole of Greece has been subject to a low birth-rate and a general decrease of population….For as men had fallen into such a state of pretentiousness, avarice, and indolence that they do not wish to marry, or if they married do rear the children born to them, or at most rule but one or two of them, so as to leave these in affluence and bring them up to waste their substance, the evil rapidly and insensibly grew….”

Theodor Mommsen in History of Rome writes, “Celibacy and childlessness became more and more common, especially among the upper classes…the maxim to which Polybius a century before traced the decay of Hellas, that it is the duty of the citizen to keep great wealth together and therefore not to beget too many children.”

Marcus Aurelius states at one point that almost every other day there was a wealthy person dying who was the last person in their blood line. People didn’t want to spend their wealth on raising children and passing on their wealth to them at an old age. Augustus tried to make family reforms to deal with the poor birth rate and poor family life. Augustus gave tax breaks to married couples who had children, but this didn’t help much because Roman citizens had become used to their freedom from family duties. While Augustus was trying to pass family reforms he couldn’t even stop members of his own family from constantly committing adultery. Many kinds of different sexual practices became accepted. Julius Caesar was called “Every woman’s man, and every man’s woman” and Nero married a young man. People would eat herbs that made them sterile. People would have abortions if they weren’t up to the task of raising the child. If the child wasn’t the gender that the parents wanted or if the child had any kind of deformity the parents would go leave the child out in the wild to die.
 
This change in the conception of the family from a personal sacrifice on the parents for the greater good of the whole family to a rise in individual freedom to marry who ever you wanted, whenever you wanted, and not care about raising any children had a huge effect. That combined with the wide acceptance of many forms of sexual activity that deviated from the marriage of man and woman for the purpose of raising children had a serious effect on the birth rate. Both Rome and Greece experienced a huge decline in birth rates as a result of the transition into the atomistic family. Eventually the more urban areas of Rome weren’t reproducing themselves and they were being filled by Roman citizens from more rural parts of Rome who hadn’t been as accustomed to the effects of atomistic Rome. It got so bad that the Roman citizens themselves weren’t reproducing a sustainable population and the only way the population stayed stable was by immigrants from foreign regions moving to Rome, and by barbarians, slaves, and captives reproducing. Rome had to hire mercenaries from neighboring provinces to help fill the ranks of the Roman military because the military was shrinking so much. The situation became so bad because true Roman citizens weren’t reproducing themselves and immigrants moving in combined with slaves/captives/ barbarians sustaining the population changed the culture in Rome. Instead of proud Roman citizens filling the country their were many people who weren’t as dedicated to Rome and didn’t share the same loyalty to Roman culture and society.

Zimmerman argues that this family situation isn’t the ONLY reason why Rome fell and Greece experienced such a decline, but this was the one problem that exacerbated all other problems. If it hadn’t been for this decline in familism then the other issues that facing the civilizations would have been manageable.
Zimmerman noted 11 parallels between atomism in Greece/Rome and Modern Western civ.
  1. Increased and rapid “causeless” divorce
  2. Decreased number of children, population decay, and increased public disrespect for parents and parenthood.
  3. Elimination of real meaning of marriage ceremony
  4. Popularity of pessimistic doctrines about early heroes
  5. Rise of theories that companionate marriage or a permissible looser family form would solve the problem
  6. The refusal of many other people under the older family form to maintain their traditions while other people escape these obligations.
  7. The spread of antifamilism of the urbane and pseudo intellectual classes to the very outer limits of civilization.
  8. Breaking down of most of the inhibitions against adultery.
  9. Revolts of youth against parents so that parenthood became more and more difficult for those who did try to raise children.
  10. Rapid rise and spread of juvenile delinquency.
  11. Common acceptance of all forms of sexual perversions.
The book isn’t about “how same sex marriage will destroy civilization”. Rather it shows that the rise in acceptance of homosexuality is a part of a larger family problem where the people of a society begin to turn away from the family values that made their civilization successful and will inevitably lead to their decline. This book was written in 1947 when the baby boomer generation was just starting to boom. Zimmerman eventually changed his views after he saw what a large generation the baby boomers were producing. However he died before he was able to see the effects of the 60’s and 70’s which brought about many of the things that predicted would happen.
 
When I say " acceptance of homosexuality" I don’t mean to imply that homosexuals should be bullied or exiled. I just mean it in the context of how it is becoming in our culture with the same sex marriage debate.
 
Curious Hobbit,

Thanks for the info. There were a lot of good points in your posts.
 
How does gay marriage harm society? I can perceive no harm. From what I have seen, gays and lesbians couldn’t do a worse job with marriage than their hetero counterparts.

One of the people who was running for president of the U.S., although I think he has now dropped out, has been married four times.

I know many people who have had two, three and four marriages. It is no longer the exception, it is the norm - and this includes Catholics as well.

The last poster asked, "How does gay marriage help society?

Well, perhaps one way might be to allow gay couples to enter into committed relationships and receive the same benefits as their hetero counterparts, including rights of inheritance, division of property, etc, which is what marriage was created for in the first place.

I also always find it confusing that Christians condemn both gay marriage and gay people who act on their orientation. If I understand it correctly, Catholics expect gay men and women to remain celibate their entire life. How realistic is that?

I would have thought Christians would welcome the idea of gay marriage as a way of reducing the promiscuity they so often condemned.

I would like to ask whether people enjoy the status quo? By that, I mean people who marry for appearances, then have a “boys night out” every so often. These men don’t identify as gay, because they are married and usually have children. But they also like to dally in the other valley, so to speak.

For those who think this isn’t prevalent, consider the federal government, and other agencies, no longer use homosexual or gay (if they ever did) when identifying people, especially in health-related situations. They are called MSM or men who have sex with men because there are substantial numbers of men who say they aren’t gay, but who do have sex with other men.

Perhaps if gay marriage were allowed, these men would not have had to marry a woman to keep up appearances. I am sure the women don’t appreciate it. Those who I have had contact with are usually pretty angry, hurt and confused.

There are many facets to the subject of gay marriage.

Peace.
 
seeker57 said:
I also always find it confusing that Christians condemn both gay marriage and gay people who act on their orientation. If I understand it correctly, Catholics expect gay men and women to remain celibate their entire life. How realistic is that?

I would have thought Christians would welcome the idea of gay marriage as a way of reducing the promiscuity they so often condemned.
Click to expand...
Why would you find it confusing that Christians condemn gay marriage? The scriptures condemn gay marriage.

“For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”

And
“If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them”
 
seeker57 said:
How does gay marriage harm society? I can perceive no harm. From what I have seen, gays and lesbians couldn’t do a worse job with marriage than their hetero counterparts.

One of the people who was running for president of the U.S., although I think he has now dropped out, has been married four times.

I know many people who have had two, three and four marriages. It is no longer the exception, it is the norm - and this includes Catholics as well.

The last poster asked, "How does gay marriage help society?

Well, perhaps one way might be to allow gay couples to enter into committed relationships and receive the same benefits as their hetero counterparts, including rights of inheritance, division of property, etc, which is what marriage was created for in the first place.

I also always find it confusing that Christians condemn both gay marriage and gay people who act on their orientation. If I understand it correctly, Catholics expect gay men and women to remain celibate their entire life. How realistic is that?

I would have thought Christians would welcome the idea of gay marriage as a way of reducing the promiscuity they so often condemned.

I would like to ask whether people enjoy the status quo? By that, I mean people who marry for appearances, then have a “boys night out” every so often. These men don’t identify as gay, because they are married and usually have children. But they also like to dally in the other valley, so to speak.

For those who think this isn’t prevalent, consider the federal government, and other agencies, no longer use homosexual or gay (if they ever did) when identifying people, especially in health-related situations. They are called MSM or men who have sex with men because there are substantial numbers of men who say they aren’t gay, but who do have sex with other men.

Perhaps if gay marriage were allowed, these men would not have had to marry a woman to keep up appearances. I am sure the women don’t appreciate it. Those who I have had contact with are usually pretty angry, hurt and confused.

There are many facets to the subject of gay marriage.

Peace.
Click to expand...
Question is: if gay marriage does pass, will these gay men still be angry, hurt and confused?
 
Gay marriage does no harm to society…but does offer stablility to men and women who form families of their own.

When one considers that gay people comprise 5-15% of the population AND of that 5-15% only 10-15% of the subculture WANTS to get married…the numbers are quite small…hardly the demise of the species due to “non-reproductive” coupling.

Those men and women with whom I am acquainted that are in same sex marriages, have children…own homes…pay taxes…eat out on Friday evenings or payday and wish to live their lives quietly without harrasment or prejudice.
 
Publisher said:
Gay marriage does no harm to society…but does offer stablility to men and women who form families of their own.

When one considers that gay people comprise 5-15% of the population AND of that 5-15% only 10-15% of the subculture WANTS to get married…the numbers are quite small…hardly the demise of the species due to “non-reproductive” coupling.

Those men and women with whom I am acquainted that are in same sex marriages, have children…own homes…pay taxes…eat out on Friday evenings or payday and wish to live their lives quietly without harrasment or prejudice.
Click to expand...
The real number of gays as a % is 1-3%
 
Matrimony means “the making of a mother”. Sexual activites between persons of the same sex can never result in making a mother. Marriage between people of the same sex, then, is simply an impossiblity. And I haven’t even begun with the spiritual ramifications.

Suffice it to say that neither a man’s physical charactaristics nor a woman’s physical charactaristics make sense on their own. They only make sense when looking at the opposite sex. Only then is the puzzle complete. Why does a man have a penis? It is not required in order to urinate. Why does a woman have a vagina and breasts? It all points to the way we were created and the ultimate purpose of the sexual act. When procreation is removed from the equation, the ultimate purpose becomes one of self gratification, not one of giving. The sexual partner becomes an object of pleasure, rather than a subject.

So how does it harm society? It takes us further away from our own reality as human beings. It turns peope into objects of pleasure for sexual gratification, rather than the complete mutual self-giving required for a loving home and healthy children. It takes us in the opposit direction and is an offense against life itself.
 
This is just one example of how it harms society.

If a boy is raised by two married lesbians he is being taught that he is not necessary in a family. He will be taught that (as a matter of fact) men are optional.

Additionally, if same-sex marriage is legalized, this philosophy of men not being necessary to the family will be taught to children of heterosexual marriages in the public schools.

It is fascinating that the left is always concerned about the plight of the single parent as well as the psychological impact on the children being raised without their father yet they are willing to support same-sex marriage which will cause this to happen even more.

Regardless of religion, it is simply not a good idea to have men being raised with this attitude. Men should be raised with a sense social and financial responsibility to their children and the mother of their children. Failure to raise men in this manner will have a devastating effect on our country and the world both economically and socially.
 
Kristin234 said:
Why would you find it confusing that Christians condemn gay marriage? The scriptures condemn gay marriage.

“For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”

And
“If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them”
Click to expand...
The scriptures don’t necessarily condemn gay marriage. The Bible includes many outrageous statements: Paul says women shouldn’t speak in public. YHWH asks for people to kill one another. Et cetera. I can provide specific references upon request. CF dignityusa.org’s FAQs:

Q: What part does the Bible play in deciding the morality of same-sex acts?
Unlike some other Christian churches, the Catholic Church does not rest its teaching on the Bible alone. But the Catholic Church does appeal to the Bible to support its teaching about natural law. Church documents claim that, from Genesis to Revelation, the Bible consistently opposes homogenital acts.

However, contemporary Bible scholars raise many questions about the matter. Read within their own historical and cultural contexts, the Bible texts do not address adult, loving homosexual relations as we understand them today.

Q: What was the point of the Bible texts if not to condemn homosexuality?
It is not easy to summarize the body of research on homosexuality in the Bible, but these are the interpretations that some scholars are proposing:

The story of Sodom in Genesis 19 is about offense against the sacred duty of hospitality. That is how Ezekiel 16:48-49, Wisdom 9:13-14, and Ecclesiasticus 16:8 unequivocally interpret this text. The attempted male rape only heightens the atrocity of this offense against charity, the paradigmatic biblical sin.
Leviticus 18:22 does forbid male-male sex as an “abomina tion.” But the word simply means an impurity or a religious taboo—like eating pork—and it only applies to penetrative anal sex, not other male or female same-sex acts. Such religious requirements were to maintain and strengthen Jewish identity. As in the case of Catholics who used to be forbidden under pain of mortal sin to eat meat on Friday, the offense was not in the act itself but in the betrayal of one’s religion.
Romans 1:27 mentions men having sex with men. But the terms used to describe it are “dishonorable” and “shameless.” These refer deliberately to social disapproval, not to ethical condemnation. Moreover, according to Paul’s popular usage, different from the technical Stoic philosophy of the day, para physin (“unnatural”) should be translated “atypical” or “beyond the ordinary.” It bears no reference to natural law. And it can imply no ethical condemnation because in 11:24 God is said to act para physin. Paul sees gay sex as an impurity (1:24), just like uncircumcision or eating forbidden foods. He mentions it to make a main point of his letter, that the purity requirements of the Jewish Law are not relevant in Christ Jesus (14:14). See L. William Countryman, Dirt, Greed, and Sex.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:8-10 list arsenokoitai among those who will be excluded from the Reign of God. This obscure term has been translated “homosexuals,” but its exact meaning is unknown. It certainly does not include women but refers to some kind of male sexual offense, probably involving money. If it does mean men having sex with men—which is dubious—it presumes the abuse and licentiousness commonly associated with male-male sex in the Roman Empire. See Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality.
Finally, Genesis 1-3 shows Adam and Eve created for mutual companionship and procreation. These accounts use the most standard of human relationships to teach a religious lesson. The point is the love and wisdom of God, who made all things good and wills us no evil. Nothing suggests the biblical authors intended a lesson on sexual orientation.

Hope this clears up the Scripture question for you!
 
buffalo said:
Out From Under - Dawn Stefanowicz
Click to expand...
Let me respond to one link with another:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia

In addition: Dawn’s experience, while not to be taken lightly, is due to the individuals that raised her. It is not valid to claim that all or the majority of homosexual couples are like this. That would be equivalent to saying that all or the majority of priests are child molesters.

I see no valid arguments against homosexual parenting in the link you provided. Only representations of stereotypes. (such as- All Priests are child molesters, all Jews are stingy, all LGBTs are psychologically unstable and STD-ridden, etc. etc.). Please feel free to clarify.
 
seeker57 said:
How does gay marriage harm society? I can perceive no harm. From what I have seen, gays and lesbians couldn’t do a worse job with marriage than their hetero counterparts.

One of the people who was running for president of the U.S., although I think he has now dropped out, has been married four times.

I know many people who have had two, three and four marriages. It is no longer the exception, it is the norm - and this includes Catholics as well.
Click to expand...
Are you aware that Catholics who practice Natural Family Planning, in other words, who do not treat pregnancy as a disease, but rather embrace life, have a divorce rate of only 2%? That’s right 2%. These are people who embrace the teachings of their Church rather than giving into the purported conveniences of secular society.

Naming the failures of individuals who depart from the teachings of the Church is not justification for a lifestyle that prevents life. Also, monagamous relationships between homosexuals are the extreme exception, not the rule. If it was the rule, no one would have to worry about AIDS.
seeker57 said:
The last poster asked, "How does gay marriage help society?

Well, perhaps one way might be to allow gay couples to enter into committed relationships and receive the same benefits as their hetero counterparts, including rights of inheritance, division of property, etc, which is what marriage was created for in the first place.
Click to expand...
They already have these rights. Its called a Last Will and Testament.
seeker57 said:
I also always find it confusing that Christians condemn both gay marriage and gay people who act on their orientation. If I understand it correctly, Catholics expect gay men and women to remain celibate their entire life. How realistic is that?
Click to expand...
It is as realistic as asking heterosexuals to remain celibate. While there will always be failures, most priests embrace their celibacy and consider it a gift.
seeker57 said:
I would have thought Christians would welcome the idea of gay marriage as a way of reducing the promiscuity they so often condemned.
Click to expand...
Promiscuity is rampant in the homosexual community, many of them with literally hundreds of sexual partners. To think that we would have all of these nice little monagamous homosexual households with lots of healthy little children if the Church would just back off is nothing but fantasy.
 
rockerchar said:
The scriptures don’t necessarily condemn gay marriage. The Bible includes many outrageous statements: Paul says women shouldn’t speak in public. YHWH asks for people to kill one another. Et cetera. I can provide specific references upon request. CF dignityusa.org’s FAQs:

Q: What part does the Bible play in deciding the morality of same-sex acts?
Unlike some other Christian churches, the Catholic Church does not rest its teaching on the Bible alone. But the Catholic Church does appeal to the Bible to support its teaching about natural law. Church documents claim that, from Genesis to Revelation, the Bible consistently opposes homogenital acts.

However, contemporary Bible scholars raise many questions about the matter. Read within their own historical and cultural contexts, the Bible texts do not address adult, loving homosexual relations as we understand them today.

Q: What was the point of the Bible texts if not to condemn homosexuality?
It is not easy to summarize the body of research on homosexuality in the Bible, but these are the interpretations that some scholars are proposing:

The story of Sodom in Genesis 19 is about offense against the sacred duty of hospitality. That is how Ezekiel 16:48-49, Wisdom 9:13-14, and Ecclesiasticus 16:8 unequivocally interpret this text. The attempted male rape only heightens the atrocity of this offense against charity, the paradigmatic biblical sin.
Leviticus 18:22 does forbid male-male sex as an “abomina tion.” But the word simply means an impurity or a religious taboo—like eating pork—and it only applies to penetrative anal sex, not other male or female same-sex acts. Such religious requirements were to maintain and strengthen Jewish identity. As in the case of Catholics who used to be forbidden under pain of mortal sin to eat meat on Friday, the offense was not in the act itself but in the betrayal of one’s religion.
Romans 1:27 mentions men having sex with men. But the terms used to describe it are “dishonorable” and “shameless.” These refer deliberately to social disapproval, not to ethical condemnation. Moreover, according to Paul’s popular usage, different from the technical Stoic philosophy of the day, para physin (“unnatural”) should be translated “atypical” or “beyond the ordinary.” It bears no reference to natural law. And it can imply no ethical condemnation because in 11:24 God is said to act para physin. Paul sees gay sex as an impurity (1:24), just like uncircumcision or eating forbidden foods. He mentions it to make a main point of his letter, that the purity requirements of the Jewish Law are not relevant in Christ Jesus (14:14). See L. William Countryman, Dirt, Greed, and Sex.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:8-10 list arsenokoitai among those who will be excluded from the Reign of God. This obscure term has been translated “homosexuals,” but its exact meaning is unknown. It certainly does not include women but refers to some kind of male sexual offense, probably involving money. If it does mean men having sex with men—which is dubious—it presumes the abuse and licentiousness commonly associated with male-male sex in the Roman Empire. See Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality.
Finally, Genesis 1-3 shows Adam and Eve created for mutual companionship and procreation. These accounts use the most standard of human relationships to teach a religious lesson. The point is the love and wisdom of God, who made all things good and wills us no evil. Nothing suggests the biblical authors intended a lesson on sexual orientation.

Hope this clears up the Scripture question for you!
Click to expand...
I think you need to have a long talk with your priest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top