Shaming the Pastor with a Same-Sex "Marriage" Argument?

[ahs]

[Note to Moderator**: I posted here because I’m doing an apologetic on the argument style used by the person, not on the social or moral issue itself. However, if a different forum is more appropriate, please move. ]

A video was posted to Facebook which plays a clip of Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd responding to a Christian Pastor who asked how the Prime Minister could justify his stance on Same-Sex “Marriage” while simultaneously identifying himself as a Christian. “Why”, the Pastor wanted to know, “should Christians vote for [him]” when he holds values that are contrary to Christian belief. (The title of the video is “A Pastor Asks A Politician Why He Supports Gay Marriage. It Seems He Wasn’t Prepared For His Reply” It can be found on YouTube quite easily.)

Prime Minister Rudd responded, first by subjecting Christian Truth to his personal subjective opinions, and then avoided answering the question altogether by throwing out “strawmen” and resorting other fallacious reasoning tactics. While some same-sex “marriage” supporters will think he made some good points (and Christians will think otherwise), I’d like to give an objective view of his arguments. Instead of discussing the Christian position on same-sex “marriage” here, **I’m going to focus on the argument made by the “politician”. **(I’ll discuss the Christian perspective another day.)

The Pastor called into question the politician’s self-identification as a Christian based on Christian theology. He specifically asked why Christians should vote for this man who self-identifies as Christian, yet supports SSM. Logically, one would expect the politician to answer the question and frame it within his Christian beliefs…“As a Christian, my faith teaches…”. But the politician did not address Christian theology. Instead he introduced a superficially similar topic (a “strawman”) and argued that, along with a non-sequitur.

For example, he begins at Christian theology by pointing out that he came to his decision based on his “informed Christian conscience”. Had he left it at that, his argument would be logically consistent, though he would then have to define, as a Christian, what a “well formed conscience” is per his particular Christian group’s beliefs. While he would ultimately be wrong in his position (since Christian theology is incompatible with same-sex conjugal unions), he at least would have made a logically consistent point that stayed within the topic and would have allowed for the audience to draw their own conclusions as to whether he is right or wrong.

But, he did not do this. Instead, he left his point on his “informed Christian conscience” up to subjective reasoning, dismissed the pastor’s question, and went on to build up a strawman argument, which he then defeated, giving the impression that he had given a strong and reasoned answer to the Pastor’s question. Here’s what I mean:

He introduced his first strawman by arguing whether or not people are “born gay”, which no scientific studies have demonstrated, so I’m not sure where he got his information. He said that if it was natural/normal, then there is no reason to deny marriage to same-sex couples. But, there is no conclusive evidence that such is normal in the first place. AND, more to the point, it has nothing to do with whether he should attain the Christian vote, because Christianity is not based on what is considered “normal” in the human perspective, but rather, is focused on the Divine…on God’s perspective. Instead of arguing what the Christian perspective/teaching is and whether he conforms to it, he side-steps that and introduces this “strawman”. Winning the emotional sense of his audience on the perceived desire to fight for the rights of “normal” people, he defeats this strawman argument with ease. However, he has done nothing at all to answer the pastor as to why a Christian should vote for someone who holds views which are contradictory to Christianity.

Then… (cont…)

 

[ahs]

…he throws in a non-sequitur, which doubles here as a red-herring - slavery. He states that if we go by the Bible [to say that homosexuality is not normal], then we have to go by the Bible which says [allegedly] that slavery was normal. It’s a red-herring because it draws the focus off the initial topic and casts a known hot-point into the mix. This gains him the emotional support of the audience who, obviously, is against slavery (as is the pastor, no doubt). It acts as a strawman in that, having defeated his “opponent” on the horrible issue of slavery, he is perceived to have refuted his opponent’s position on human rights in general. And it’s a non-sequitur because, regardless of what the Bible says (or doesn’t say) about slavery, it does not follow that therefore homosexual carnal unions are okay within Christianity. His point here is invalid on several fronts. Not only does it not follow that, because “slavery” has been considered normal, that therefore homosexuality also should be, but we don’t even know the definition of slavery being refuted here. He said that “the Bible says slavery is a natural condition”. Yet, he neither provides the context for his claim, nor the citation, nor does he stick with the Biblical definition of slavery that the Jews understood at the time the Scriptures were recorded. “Slavery” back then did not mean the same thing it would mean 2,000-4,000 years down the road when we fought forced slavery in America. But that’s not even the main point. The main point is, he has yet to stay on topic and defend his position of saying he is Christian, yet rejecting Chrisitan doctrine and expecting the Christian vote.

Prime Minister Rudd’s whole argument was based on logical fallacies. While on the surface it seems the pastor was not ready for what the politician has to say, a deeper look shows that, clearly, the politician was not ready to give a logical defense for his position, he was not ready for what the Pastor asked. But what concerns me more is this: If he relies on the ignorance of his audience and dodges the issues BEFORE he is elected…what’s he gonna do in office? And there is yet an even more troubling issue here. This man is claiming Christ…he is a Christian. Yet, here he is attempting to pit the Word of God against none other than…the Word of God! You see, everyone knows that slavery, as we understand it in the modern era, is a criminal injustice. This Prime Minister, however, has painted a wrong picture of Scripture by misrepresenting the position on slavery within the Biblical Texts, and then uses that to basically say that we need to reject the Word of God since it has a supposed faulty position on slavery. “If the Bible says [homosexuality is NOT normal], then we have to accept slavery as normal”. This position of his carries the explicit stance that he believes homosexuality to be NORMAL, which he has just implied the Bible is against, and therefore we need to understand that the Bible is WRONG [per his view]. Now, coming from an atheist, I’d expect a statement like that. But remember the original context of the question he was asked, and how his supporters have portrayed him (as a Christian that supports SSM). The final answer that the discerning Christian should walk away from is this:

The question: “Why should you get the Christian vote even though your views are contrary to Christian values?”

Prime Minister’s “Christian” answer: “Because the Bible is wrong.”

I am reminded of a particular passage here: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Is 5:20)

 

[Petaro]

Daddy Girl, you are wrong. Prime Minister Rudd misquoted the Bible on slavery stating that the Holy Book says slavery is a natural condition. He was quoting an old Greek Philosopher. However the poor pastor was not confident enough in his knowledge of the Bible to challenge the Prime Minister. It took the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney to take the PM up on this failure. However Rudd’s real failure was to berate the Pastor as some Gay hating bigot, rather than an upholder of the Christian teaching on Marriage.
Do not worry, the Australian people are not fooled by a hypocrite who is photographed outside a church every Sunday yet, as his electorate has a significant gay population, he reverses his position on this social issue at the last stages of an election campaign. He lost the Christian vote in thirty seconds. Australia is a very secular country unlike the US, however it is predicted that this Prime Minister will be voted out of office in one of the largest landslides of the last few decades. He is a bully, and a hypocrite and is being judged right now. Watch for the international news on Sunday.
People supporting this grubby display of political expediency need a more thorough grasp of formal logic, coherent debating methodology and the Bible. Rudd lost the election in this one television appearance. AMDG

 

[Petaro]

Daddy Girl, you are wrong. Prime Minister Rudd misquoted the Bible on slavery stating that the Holy Book says slavery is a natural condition. He was quoting an old Greek Philosopher. However the poor pastor was not confident enough in his knowledge of the Bible to challenge the Prime Minister. It took the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney to take the PM up on this failure. However Rudd’s real failure was to berate the Pastor as some Gay hating bigot, rather than an upholder of the Christian teaching on Marriage.
Do not worry, the Australian people are not fooled by a hypocrite who is photographed outside a church every Sunday yet, as his electorate has a significant gay population, he reverses his position on this social issue at the last stages of an election campaign. He lost the Christian vote in thirty seconds. Australia is a very secular country unlike the US, however it is predicted that this Prime Minister will be voted out of office in one of the largest landslides of the last few decades. He is a bully, and a hypocrite and is being judged right now. Watch for the international news on Sunday.
People supporting this grubby display of political expediency need a more thorough grasp of formal logic, coherent debating methodology and the Bible. Rudd lost the election in this one television appearance. AMDG

 

[josh987654321]

Was it on Q&A?

Could someone please provide me with a link to this video. Thank you.

Josh

 

[josh987654321]

I just watched that video, and thought that the politician’s answer is right on and that he spoke intelligently, eloquently, humanely, and truthfully.

I didn’t think he used any “straw man” or logical fallacy defenses at all.

What he said made perfect sense.

.

I have not watched it yet, but may I ask, what about same sex marriage makes perfect sense?

Thanks
Josh

 

[St_Stoli]

A link to the video on YouTube is available here:

youtu.be/0CmZIakQv6Y

I personally find this politician to be a wonderful Christian with an open heart and soul. God bless him!

 

[St_Stoli]

I just watched that video, and thought that the politician’s answer is right on and that he spoke intelligently, eloquently, humanely, and truthfully.

I didn’t think he used any “straw man” or logical fallacy defenses at all.

What he said made perfect sense.

.

 

[KennC]

I just watched that video, and thought that the politician’s answer is right on and that he spoke intelligently, eloquently, humanely, and truthfully.

I didn’t think he used any “straw man” or logical fallacy defenses at all.

What he said made perfect sense.

.

Message boards need a “like” button!!

 

[ahs]

Daddy Girl, REALLY?!

Nevermind whether SSM is right or wrong (that’s for Social and Moral Theology), the Prime Minister did not answer the question at all. He gave a coherent answer to his own self-developed “questions”…not to the questions of the Pastor.

Here are the “givens” that are non-debatable for this purpose, taken from the video itself and the promotion the PM has recieved from his supporters as being Christian, and from his critics on holding contradictory views to Christianity: The politician is 1) Christian, 2) supports views that his Christian voters see as non-Christian 3) his supporters view him as Christian.

**The question from the Pastor was, as a Christian, why should you receive the Christian vote when you hold to non-Christian views. This question was never answered. If he did such a great job answering it, then what was his answer? **

**The question: “Why should you get the Christian vote even though your views are contrary to Christian values?”

Prime Minister’s “Christian” answer: [DaddyGirl, please fill in the blank here]**

The Prime Minister used fallacious reasoning throughout. He completely failed to asnwer the Pastor’s question. Though you are right, he did speak eloquently on SSM. The problem is, eloquence has nothing to do with why he should garner the Christian vote when he, as a Christian, holds view which are contrary to Christianity, per the view of his would-be Christian supporters.

Remember, I’m not debating here whether SSM is right or wrong…I’m pointing out the deceptive argument from the PM, whether it was intentional or not.]

 

[ahs]

A link to the video on YouTube is available here:

I personally find this politician to be a wonderful Christian with an open heart and soul. God bless him!

That’s not relevent to whether he answered the question or used deception/fallacious reasoning. He might be a great person, but to say this fact made him right is no different that an *ad-hominem * argument (only in reverse).

The fact is, regardless of how great he may or may not be, he dodged teh question and engaged in logical fallacy to support his view.

 

[MJJean]

**The question from the Pastor was, as a Christian, why should you receive the Christian vote when you hold to non-Christian views. This question was never answered. If he did such a great job answering it, then what was his answer? **

The question of why a Christian politician who holds some views that are seen as non-Christian should get the Christian vote was answered in a way.

Plenty of practicing Christians support secular (legal) same sex marriage and some Christians support secular (legal) same sex marriage performed by clergy in religious ceremonies. People disagree with their particular church’s teachings all the time and they do vote according to their personal beliefs.

 

[ahs]

The question of why a Christian politician who holds some views that are seen as non-Christian should get the Christian vote was answered in a way.

Plenty of practicing Christians support secular (legal) same sex marriage and some Christians support secular (legal) same sex marriage performed by clergy in religious ceremonies. People disagree with their particular church’s teachings all the time and they do vote according to their personal beliefs.

The PM could have used you by his side in this case. THAT, is a logically consistent answer [reagrdless of the moral aspects]. Unfortunately, that answer did not come from the PM…it came after the fact on a forum where it’s a little too late to cast a shadow over his fallacious reasoning that he gave on public televsion.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The question of why a Christian politician who holds some views that are seen as non-Christian should get the Christian vote was answered in a way.

Plenty of practicing Christians support secular (legal) same sex marriage and some Christians support secular (legal) same sex marriage performed by clergy in religious ceremonies. People disagree with their particular church’s teachings all the time and they do vote according to their personal beliefs.

It is not clear what you mean by “practicing Christian.” It seems that you are using the term so generically that it simply means any notion of what it means to be Christian, no matter how misconstrued, is equally valid to any other. According to this view, even when such a notion is in direct contradiction to the teaching of Christ, himself, that notion is still “Christian,” which is nonsensical.

In other words, you seem to be saying that as long as the person him/herself thinks they are Christian that is all that matters, even if what they say and do is in direct conflict with what Christ taught. This makes “being Christian” a rather empty, meaningless and vague appellation.

You do understand that “being Catholic” is not susceptible to this kind of analysis since the chief attributes of the Catholic Church are authority, infallibility, and indefectibility. Essentially, this means that Catholics are not free to dissent from the teachings of the Church in matters of faith and morals precisely because dissenting from Church teaching is not merely expressing an opinion contrary to someone else’s. It means, basically, disagreeing with Christ (who was God) himself. That your opinion, or the opinion of any dissenter, counts equally to God’s in matters as weighty as morals and the eternal life of human beings, is, frankly, anti-Christian.

Let’s be very clear here. When you express this kind of opinion that Christ’s teachings concerning faith and morals are “wide open” to interpretation and that any interpretation is equally valid, you are essentially telling others that any opinion can be trusted and that Christ wasn’t saying anything very meaningful since it could be rendered in many equally valid ways. In other words, truth, according to you, is not “one,” but merely vaguely “whatever you want to believe or think.” This was not the teaching of Christ who was very definite about the nature of truth.

You do understand that the eternal well-being of others hangs in the balance? That by counseling others that anything “humane” is essentially what Christianity means and is sufficient for “being Christian” you will have to explain how that notion jibes with the following:

Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ. (Gal 1:10)

“I do not receive glory from men; but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves. “I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him. “**How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God? **” (John 5:41-45)

Quite frankly, DaddyGirl’s concept of Christianity seems to be one of enshrining “human opinion” as what is ultimately “pleasing” to God, as if God is nothing but the consensus of human opinion and would not deign to oppose it. That God’s love and will comes from and equates to what humans want is simply another way of deifying humanity. It is the logical end of secular humanism, to make humanity Into god by tranferring and projecting human desires and wants into some imagined cosmic reality under the complete control of human will. Man becomes god.

Again, this is the antithesis of God “became” man, which is the core of Christianity. A humanist’s “deification” of humanity does not require the existence of God, but rather the illusion of god. Christianity requires the existence of a transcendent God who steps into human history.

Doubtless, your appraisal of Christianity would allow for God becoming man to also be an optional belief that is “open” to interpretation.

 

[MJJean]

It is not clear what you mean by “practicing Christian.” It seems that you are using the term so generically that it simply means any notion of what it means to be Christian, no matter how misconstrued, is equally valid to any other. According to this view, even when such a notion is in direct contradiction to the teaching of Christ, himself, that notion is still “Christian,” which is nonsensical.

In other words, you seem to be saying that as long as the person him/herself thinks they are Christian that is all that matters, even if what they say and do is in direct conflict with what Christ taught. This makes “being Christian” a rather empty, meaningless and vague appellation.

You do understand that “being Catholic” is not susceptible to this kind of analysis since the chief attributes of the Catholic Church are authority, infallibility, and indefectibility. Essentially, this means that Catholics are not free to dissent from the teachings of the Church in matters of faith and morals precisely because dissenting from Church teaching is not merely expressing an opinion contrary to someone else’s. It means, basically, disagreeing with Christ (who was God) himself. That your opinion, or the opinion of any dissenter, counts equally to God’s in matters as weighty as morals and the eternal life of human beings, is, frankly, anti-Christian.

Let’s be very clear here. When you express this kind of opinion that Christ’s teachings concerning faith and morals are “wide open” to interpretation and that any interpretation is equally valid, you are essentially telling others that any opinion can be trusted and that Christ wasn’t saying anything very meaningful since it could be rendered in many equally valid ways. In other words, truth, according to you, is not “one,” but merely vaguely “whatever you want to believe or think.” This was not the teaching of Christ who was very definite about the nature of truth.

You do understand that the eternal well-being of others hangs in the balance? That by counseling others that anything “humane” is essentially what Christianity means and is sufficient for “being Christian” you will have to explain how that notion jibes with the following:

Quite frankly, DaddyGirl’s concept of Christianity seems to be one of enshrining “human opinion” as what is ultimately “pleasing” to God, as if God is nothing but the consensus of human opinion and would not deign to oppose it. That God’s love and will comes from and equates to what humans want is simply another way of deifying humanity. It is the logical end of secular humanism, to make humanity Into god by tranferring and projecting human desires and wants into some imagined cosmic reality under the complete control of human will. Man becomes god.

Again, this is the antithesis of God “became” man, which is the core of Christianity. A humanist’s “deification” of humanity does not require the existence of God, but rather the illusion of god. Christianity requires the existence of a transcendent God who steps into human history.

Doubtless, your appraisal of Christianity would allow for God becoming man to also be an optional belief that is “open” to interpretation.

I was not commenting on the Church, morality, or defining Christianity. I was logically answering a question posed.

The reality is that many people identify as Christian. It is not for any of us to decide if they actually are Christian or if they are “good Christians”. That is for God and God alone.

The term “practicing Christian” is meant to separate those that attend services regularly from those that do not.

For the purposes of this discussion, anyone who identifies themselves as Christian and who believes in the right for homosexuals to marry is likely going to vote for a fellow Christian that also believes in SSM.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The question of why a Christian politician who holds some views that are seen as non-Christian should get the Christian vote was answered in a way.

Plenty of practicing Christians support secular (legal) same sex marriage and some Christians support secular (legal) same sex marriage performed by clergy in religious ceremonies. People disagree with their particular church’s teachings all the time and they do vote according to their personal beliefs.

I was not commenting on the Church, morality, or defining Christianity. I was logically answering a question posed.

Actually, the question you answered is more properly phrased as, "Why WOULD a Christian politician who holds non-Christian views get the votes of like-minded “Christians?”

Your use of the word SHOULD seemed to express your approval of this happening rather than expressing a mere observation about the divergence of opinions regarding what it means to be Christian.

The reality is that many people identify as Christian. It is not for any of us to decide if they actually are Christian or if they are “good Christians”. That is for God and God alone.

Actually, this, too, is a misunderstanding of the role of the Church. The Church has been given the moral authority by Christ himself to determine what it means to be a “good” Christian. If that quality were to be completely beyond our capacity to discern we would have no certain means by which to determine what is good and what path we should follow. Christian life would be, to use a crass term, a **** shoot.

Clearly, Jesus taught that we have the possibility to discern good and evil within our means because he established the Church as the vehicle by which a clear definition of what it means to be a Christian, even a GOOD Christian can be had.

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

“Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. (Matt 18:15-18)

The term “practicing Christian” is meant to separate those that attend services regularly from those that do not.

For the purposes of this discussion, anyone who identifies themselves as Christian and who believes in the right for homosexuals to marry is likely going to vote for a fellow Christian that also believes in SSM.

Again, being a Christian is not a matter of self-appellation. It is a clearly definable standard as laid down in the teaching of Christ and through the authority of the Church. Whether anyone truly lives up to that moral and spiritual standard is another question.

For that matter, if, as you state, it is up to “God alone” to determine whether a person is a Christian or not, then we should desist from using the term completely as self-descriptive. It is clearly not within our prerogative, according to you, to use the term to describe ourselves since, as you say, “God alone” has the right to do so.

 

[josh987654321]

A link to the video on YouTube is available here:

Thank you.
"DaddyGirl:

.

KennC:

.

I personally find this politician to be a wonderful Christian with an open heart and soul. God bless him!

I am against same sex marriage and I would just like to respond to Kevin Rudd and share what I have learnt with you here and ask you, DaddyGirl and KennC about what you think.
Kevin Rudd:

I do not believe people when they are born choose their sexuality

I agree. However I believe that not one person doesn’t have an immoral desire (myself as a heterosexual, I did not choose my sexuality and I also suffer from immoral desires as every man/woman does) and I believe that the morality of the act doesn’t change simply because of our desire for it, because I think that would be like giving into our every desire and saying “If God didn’t want me to do this, than he wouldn’t have given me the desire to do it.”
Kevin Rudd:

The idea that this is some abnormal condition is just wrong.

I believe this is like saying, “the idea that our sexuality is some abnormal condition is just wrong.” Which would be true, because our sexuality is not an abnormal condition, but I believe it certainly is an immoral one in many cases especially when talking about sexual immorality which I believe includes the sexual acts of homosexuality.
Kevin Rudd:

If you accept that it is natural and normal for someone to be gay,

Okay.

I believe all homosexual men and women are absolutely normal, however I believe that the sexual acts of homosexuality are disordered and immoral.
Kevin Rudd:

because that’s who they are,

This is where I believe he is wrong, I believe that our desires are not who we are, because we make that choice.

“Telling us to obey our instincts (our desires) is like telling us to obey ‘people.’ People say different things; so do our instincts. Our instincts are at war … Each instinct, if you listen to it, will claim to be gratified at the expense of the rest.” - C.S. Lewis
Kevin Rudd:

than it follows from that, that I don’t think it’s right to say that if these two folk here who are in love with each other and of the same gender, should be denied the opportunity for legal recognition of the duration of their relationship, by having marriage equality.

So why should these three folks who love each other and etc etc be denied (as he say’s) the opportunity for legal recognition for the duration of their relationship?

He also say’s “marriage equality” which I think is quite odd, because last I checked, any man could marry any woman and vice versa, so the first thing we must ask is, what is marriage? and if marriage can mean anything than pretty soon it means nothing, I believe marriage does not mean anything, however I believe some people do want it to when the truth doesn’t suit them.

I don’t know if you guys have heard this before, but If we are against “marriage equality” (or whatever people wish to call it) than you are also against “marriage equality” unless you legalise every union someone at a whim or fancy wishes to call a marriage.
Kevin Rudd:

What is the fundamental principal of the new testament, it was one of universal love, loving your fellow man, and if we get obsessed with a particular definition of that through a form of sexuality, then I think were missing the centrality of what the gospel is all about.

This statement worries me greatly, should we all be more promiscuous than? should we all just have one big orgy? wouldn’t that be the ultimate act of love?

I believe these kind of people severely missunderstand “love” certainly in the Christian sense, the centrality of what the Gospels are all about is the “love of agape.” Because the love of Agape is selfless love.

Our sexuality is sacred, I believe we do not show Christian love by desacralizing our sexuality in appeasing our sexual desires.

If Mr Rudd is correct, than it’s quite hypocritical that Jesus didn’t sleep around with many women, because he was hardly practicing what he preached about love if that’s the case.

I would also like to add some concluding notes to this.

The first thing that comes to mind with the existence of God, is that God must have created us male and female (as for evolution, I don’t believe we evolved from nothing) and as Genesis states.

I also refer to Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9 when Jesus was teaching about divorce, I believe he also affirmed it.
Gospels:

**Matthew 19:4-6

4 Jesus answered, “Don’t you know that in the beginning the Creator made a man and a woman? 5 That’s why a man leaves his father and mother and gets married. He becomes like one person with his wife. 6 Then they are no longer two people, but one. And no one should separate a couple that God has joined together.”

Mark 10:6-9

6 But in the beginning God made a man and a woman. 7 That’s why a man leaves his father and mother and gets married. 8 He becomes like one person with his wife. Then they are no longer two people, but one. 9 And no one should separate a couple that God has joined together.” **

To me, this makes absolute and perfect sense and I don’t know how marriage could be viewed any other way.

So thus I believe that the sexual acts of homosexuality are sinful along with the CC because it means to use the bodies organs in a manner in which they were not designed to be used for.

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from above post -

Some people say, that while they could believe that the sexual acts of homosexuality are immoral (sinful), they could still support/advocate the legalisation of civil same sex marriage as a kind of live and let live kind of thing, but I believe there are a few problems with that.

First off, I believe that if we know it to be sinful, than we wouldn’t be loving our homosexual brothers and sisters by advocating sin for them. I believe God is not God only for those who believe in him.

Secondly, Because homosexuality is a consensual act, this is why it is not criminalised and I believe no one is arging for homosexuality to be made illegal.

Thridly, Same sex marriage does not legalise a homosexual union, I believe It publicly recognises a homosexual union as equivalent and equal to a heterosexual one, which I believe would mean to ignore the differences between a man and a woman, their sexual compatibility and complementarity with one another, the human anatomy.

Also, when it comes to viewing the sexual acts of homosexuality -

Leviticus say’s this -

**Leviticus 18:22
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13
13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.**

Don’t worry yet, I don’t view it like this, just using Leviticus to show similarities

This is what Leviticus say’s about Adultery -

**Leviticus 18:16
16 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.

Leviticus 20:10
10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.**

Now I look at how Jesus fulfills the Old Testament (Matthew 5:17-20) in the New Testament -

**John 8:3-11

3 The Pharisees and the teachers of the Law of Moses brought in a woman who had been caught in bed with a man who wasn’t her husband. They made her stand in the middle of the crowd. 4 Then they said, “Teacher, this woman was caught sleeping with a man who isn’t her husband. 5 The Law of Moses teaches that a woman like this should be stoned to death! What do you say?”

6 They asked Jesus this question, because they wanted to test him and bring some charge against him. But Jesus simply bent over and started writing on the ground with his finger.

7 They kept on asking Jesus about the woman. Finally, he stood up and said, “If any of you have never sinned, then go ahead and throw the first stone at her!” 8 Once again he bent over and began writing on the ground. 9 The people left one by one, beginning with the oldest. Finally, Jesus and the woman were there alone.

10 Jesus stood up and asked her, “Where is everyone? Isn’t there anyone left to accuse you?”

11 “No sir,” the woman answered.

Then Jesus told her, “I am not going to accuse you either. You may go now, but don’t sin anymore.” **

I believe that the sexual acts of homosexuality should be seen likewise.

**Galatians 3:26-29

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. **

There is also neither heterosexual nor homosexual.

And finally as Pope Francis said, I believe the CCC explains it well.

**Catechism of the Catholic Church

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. [They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial.] This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.**

I apologise for the length of this reply, I hope it helps, feel free to reply/refute any of it.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Zachary]

There is also neither heterosexual nor homosexual.

Are there no killers or abortionist? No hockey players or pop stars? No men or women?

Clearly the scripture you quote does not mean what you believe. Instead, it means that now (since Jesus and the new covenant) God is available to all His people, and not just a chosen race. It does not mean we are free to act on our desires (good or bad).

You have to consider Bible as a whole. Yes, Leviticus says the act is wrong and proscribes death as punishment. But Jesus says “let he without sin cast the first stone.” One argues that this means Jesus would allow “SS-marriage” but, they’d be wrong. They’d be used the Bible as a hole. Jesus was teaching another lesson altogether; something more closely like chiding the champions of Diversity for their narrow acceptance of other people’s beliefs (“your a bigot and close minded unless you believe what I tell you is right”). Jesus would never stand for that.

 

[ahs]

Are there no killers or abortionist? No hockey players or pop stars? No men or women?

Clearly the scripture you quote does not mean what you believe. **Instead, it means that now (since Jesus and the new covenant) God is available to all His people, and not just a chosen race. It does not mean we are free to act on our desires (good or bad). **

You have to consider Bible as a whole. Yes, Leviticus says the act is wrong and proscribes death as punishment. But Jesus says “let he without sin cast the first stone.” One argues that this means Jesus would allow “SS-marriage” but, they’d be wrong. They’d be used the Bible as a hole. Jesus was teaching another lesson altogether; something more closely like chiding the champions of Diversity for their narrow acceptance of other people’s beliefs (“your a bigot and close minded unless you believe what I tell you is right”). Jesus would never stand for that.

I am under the impression that this is what Josh was alluding to (the bolded part).