Sola scriptura gay marriage

[Protestor]

Not by the Catholic Church, or as far as I know by European Protestants except for the Nazi era in Germany.

noted

 

[annem]

Contarini

What pagan culture? What free sexuality? I question how much you actually know about any ancient pagan culture if you think the phrase “free sexuality” describes any of them.

Hi Contarini, and thanks for your interesting response.

Actually, I find your stand that the ancient Romans and Greeks were not sexually promiscuous a surprise. There have been any number of fashionable (meaning the New York Times and other various liberals loved them) books like “From Shame to Sin” that grumbled about how the horrible, prudish early Christians squashed the glorious, sexually advanced world of pagan Rome (gentle smile). Try picking up copies of Ovid and Petronius’ Satyricon.

But here are some books I’ve read that I based my statements on: “The Economy of Prostitution in the Roman World” by McGinn and also by McGinn " Prostitution, Sexuality, and the Law in Ancient Rome. " Another would be “Goddesses, Whore, Wives, and Slaves”.

I don’t think there is any doubt that early Catholicism caused a revolution in sexual behavior. And it was based on the belief that sex was a gift to be shared only with a husband and a wife.

I am trying to think of some of the books on ancient Greek sexuality that I read, but can’t recall any titles at the moment. I will have to look them up. But come on. The way that poor families earned money in Athens was by letting rich men have sex with their young boys. This is not exactly news.

This is getting long so I’ll continue you it in another comment.

May God flood you with miracles, Annem

 

[annem]

Contarini

How do you know that the men of Sodom rejected the offer of Lot’s daughters because they were not sexually interested in women?

You are bringing this assumption to the text.

I daresay you are right that I am assuming. I haven’t made a study of it. However, there are about two thousand years of that interpretation. Here’s Clement of Alexandria: “The Sodomites …burned with insane love for boys”, about 195 AD. And here’s the Apostolic Constitutions circa 390 AD “The sin of Sodom is contrary to nature”.

How do you get round the fact that there are two thousand years of interpreting the sin of Sodom as homosexuality?

Would you mind please explaining your new interpretation? I would be interested in learning about it.

May God flood you with miracles, Annem

 

[EIF5A]

Homosexual lust is condemned. But what about non-lustful desire for the same-sex, like emotional bonding and feelings of romance? Is that contrary to nature and condemned?

 

[Contarini]

Contarini

I daresay you are right that I am assuming. I haven’t made a study of it. However, there are about two thousand years of that interpretation. Here’s Clement of Alexandria: “The Sodomites …burned with insane love for boys”, about 195 AD. And here’s the Apostolic Constitutions circa 390 AD “The sin of Sodom is contrary to nature”.

How do you get round the fact that there are two thousand years of interpreting the sin of Sodom as homosexuality?

Would you mind please explaining your new interpretation? I would be interested in learning about it.

May God flood you with miracles, Annem

That’s a good point. I certainly take the exegetical tradition extremely seriously.

At the same time, there are longstanding interpretations that need to be questioned or reframed in some way.

Furthermore, the medieval (and I think also patristic, though I’m less sure) understanding of “sodomy” covered any sexual act that was seen as “unnatural.” Anal or oral intercourse between a man and a woman was also seen as “sodomy.” People did not think in terms of an “exclusively homosexual” orientation. The patristic passages you cite do not constitute evidence that the men of Sodom were sexually uninterested in women, or even that the Fathers thought they were.

Clearly the early Christians (probably including Jude in Scripture, although some pro-gay exegetes argue that the phrase “heteras sarkas,” which ironically has the same Greek root as “heterosexual,” refers to lusting after angels, who have “another flesh” than humans–but I’m really not sure this makes much difference) understood the “sin of Sodom” in terms of the very common homosexuality/pederasty in their own culture. (This was anything but “free sexuality”–it actually had a lot of rules associated with it.) As some conservative scholars have pointed out, there do appears to have been some “committed same-sex relationships” between adults in the ancient world, but by and large the assumption was that same-sex relations would involve a boy or a slave. In other words, same-sex sexuality was still very much about dominance and control–as was all sexuality, pretty much.

In my opinion, modern egalitarian sexuality is the result of Christianity. It isn’t the same thing as ancient pagan sexuality at all. And that presents difficulties in applying Scriptural and patristic condemnations.

The bottom line: whatever the Fathers said, it’s clear that this passage is talking about rape, and thus in a cultural context where people distinguish very sharply between rape and consensual sex, the story of Sodom is not a good place to start for a discussion of the morality of homosexuality.

Edwin

 

[steido01]

The bottom line: whatever the Fathers said, it’s clear that this passage is talking about rape, and thus in a cultural context where people distinguish very sharply between rape and consensual sex, the story of Sodom is not a good place to start for a discussion of the morality of homosexuality.

As always, Edwin, your post is informative and convincing. What little I know about the topic generally folds into what you’ve posted.

But I’m wondering if you’re taking it a bit too far in saying that Sodom is not a good place to start a discussion on the morality of homosexuality. Instead, I’d say it’s just that (and perhaps only that) - a place to start. Both the Scriptural account and the fathers’ writings make abundantly clear that any sexual acts outside of marriage are abominable. The next step in the discussion is discerning what ‘marriage’ is, and who and how many can be a part of one.

 

[EasterJoy]

Isn’t this similar though for a solo scripture(SS)believer when reading and discerning say a verse like 1 Corinthians 11:6

"For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled.”

I mean many/most say they don’t have to cover their heads and use the reasoning that Paul was only talking about a cultural custom of that time and now it’s acceptable for women to go uncovered, but a few say they need to cover because that’s what Paul commands in that verse. So in reality it’s not a huge stretch for some to believe that he was talking about homosexuality in an orgy type obscene way that was happening culturally at that time instead of in the “committed relationship” way that is promoted now as acceptable.

It’s the problem I see with SS. So many leaders of churches, all claiming they are lead by the spirit and I think truly believing they are, leaving us with the resulting chaos.

I’ve heard time and time again over the years the reasoning that one follower can be convicted of an issue, say wearing dresses only, or head coverings, but another may not. Without one true head of the Church we end up with whip lash, trying to figure out who or what is right.

Referring to women with their heads uncovered, he called it a custom:
But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God. 1 Cor. 16:11

That makes it a discipline, something that could be a binding custom or not, which is what it is.

 

[EasterJoy]

Homosexual lust is condemned. But what about non-lustful desire for the same-sex, like emotional bonding and feelings of romance? Is that contrary to nature and condemned?

Who said a man couldn’t be friends with another man? No one. That they could not be in a relationship of mutual care? No one. It is when a man takes another man into his bed as if that man were a woman capable of a complementary relationship that is forbidden.

What do you mean by “contrary to nature”? Do you mean something that doesn’t occur in nature, or do you mean something that is disordered when it does occur in nature? There are many disordered things that are common in nature, but that does not make them “natural,” because we do not mean things that are consistent with fallen nature. By according to nature on the moral plane, we mean according to the nature we are intended to have.

Besides, I don’t think I’ve ever heard of two gay men talking about male-male sex as if it was something that was supposed to be pure. It is all about lust; I’ve never even heard the concept of a “pure” sexual relationship between two men brought up as a possibility. Have you ever heard of a gay man say he was saving himself for marriage? It is unheard of. All you hear is “safe sex,” meaning using barriers against passing around viruses or finding a “committed” partner so that the barriers aren’t necessary. Most of them talk about priests and consecrated religious as if they are all liars, frustrated fools, or both. (One priest who left the ministry to take a same-sex lover claims that he “realized” while he was still in minor seminary that *everybody there *was homosexual. *Everybody!! * He *used a number, *like 600 people. He really believed that!!)

 

[annem]

Contarini

People did not think in terms of an “exclusively homosexual” orientation.

No, they didn’t. It was expected in ancient Rome that everyone could be attracted to just about anyone. Maybe even the local goat. Of the ancients whose lives we know in great detail, such as the emperor’s, we know of only one case, in all those centuries, of any emperor who stuck to one sex. Cl-cl-Claudius. The one and only. And he was heterosexual.

common homosexuality/pederasty in their own culture. (This was anything but “free sexuality”–it actually had a lot of rules associated with it.) As some conservative scholars have pointed out, there do appears to have been some “committed same-sex relationships” between adults in the ancient world, but by and large the assumption was that same-sex relations would involve a boy or a slave.

Of course the ancients had sorts of rules, although they broke them with impunity, and although the few rules in no way made the society less promiscuous. Men were hardly expected to be faithful to their wives. The plebs had all sorts of brothels and promiscuous sex available to them, not to mention Lupercalia frequently resulted in orgies.

The bottom one fourth of the population, the slaves, appears to have had to endure endless rapes. Especially the pretty boys.

This was human sexuality without Christianity. Not, I would point out, a pretty picture.

Getting too long again. I’ll continue in another comment,

May God flood you with miracles, Annem

 

[annem]

Contarini

In my opinion, modern egalitarian sexuality is the result of Christianity. It isn’t the same thing as ancient pagan sexuality at all. And that presents difficulties in applying Scriptural and patristic condemnations.

Hi. No, ancient pagan sexuality is not the same thing as sexuality today. Of course culture’s change. And things could hardly have gotten much worse than little boy brothels on every street corner, with the boys allowed to retire only when their first body hair sprouted.

But I would have to disagree that modern egalitarian sexuality is the result of Christianity. Yikes, no. The catastrophe that is upon us is the direct result of our own evil inclinations and a rejection of Catholic morality. The only way it’s our fault is that we have refused to stand up for Catholic dogma enough.

Marriage has almost been destroyed. In the 30 and under group, over fifty percent of the babies born in the US today are illegitimate. This is going to have devastating consequences for those children - statistically, they are likely to end up failures in school, failures in later jobs, but they will succeed in one statistic: they make up 80% of our prison population.

What we urgently need is to evangelize with basic Catholic theology.’

The bottom line: whatever the Fathers said, it’s clear that this passage is talking about rape, and thus in a cultural context where people distinguish very sharply between rape and consensual sex, the story of Sodom is not a good place to start for a discussion of the morality of homosexuality.

I have no idea if it is only about rape. I will have to look into it.
Certainly the ancient Jews distinguished between rape and consensual sex. But, sorry, I doubt very much the ancient Romans did, at least, not as we would. The owner who raped his slave cared not at all if it was consensual. And considered no moral taint to the interlude. The soldier who raped a woman after a city had been conquered knew it was rape, but he thought it was his right to rape.

The Roman world was a moral cesspool. It is humiliating to admit that we are almost as degraded today as they were.

May God flood you with miracles, Annem

 

[EasterJoy]

That’s a good point. I certainly take the exegetical tradition extremely seriously.

At the same time, there are longstanding interpretations that need to be questioned or reframed in some way.

Furthermore, the medieval (and I think also patristic, though I’m less sure) understanding of “sodomy” covered any sexual act that was seen as “unnatural.” Anal or oral intercourse between a man and a woman was also seen as “sodomy.” People did not think in terms of an “exclusively homosexual” orientation. The patristic passages you cite do not constitute evidence that the men of Sodom were sexually uninterested in women, or even that the Fathers thought they were.

Clearly the early Christians (probably including Jude in Scripture, although some pro-gay exegetes argue that the phrase “heteras sarkas,” which ironically has the same Greek root as “heterosexual,” refers to lusting after angels, who have “another flesh” than humans–but I’m really not sure this makes much difference) understood the “sin of Sodom” in terms of the very common homosexuality/pederasty in their own culture. (This was anything but “free sexuality”–it actually had a lot of rules associated with it.) As some conservative scholars have pointed out, there do appears to have been some “committed same-sex relationships” between adults in the ancient world, but by and large the assumption was that same-sex relations would involve a boy or a slave. In other words, same-sex sexuality was still very much about dominance and control–as was all sexuality, pretty much.

In my opinion, modern egalitarian sexuality is the result of Christianity. It isn’t the same thing as ancient pagan sexuality at all. And that presents difficulties in applying Scriptural and patristic condemnations.

The bottom line: whatever the Fathers said, it’s clear that this passage is talking about rape, and thus in a cultural context where people distinguish very sharply between rape and consensual sex, the story of Sodom is not a good place to start for a discussion of the morality of homosexuality.

Edwin

You do not need to start with Sodom. You can start with Our Lord’s answer to the question of divorce:

*He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?” He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” *
Matt. 19:4-9

What can we learn from this passage?
First: Marriage was created correctly the first time: One man, one woman, because the Creator 'made them male and female." Other variations were not improvements, even if Moses or the patriarchs tolerated them.
Second: Later attempts to “improve” marriage to make it more manageable come out of hard-heartedness, not greater understanding of humanity. People do grow in understanding of themselves, yes, but if they believe they understand themselves better than God does, that is never progress. Instead, there will always be some who do not “get” it: “Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom that is granted.” Matt. 19:11

Note also that Our Lord said “whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.” Would guilt be imputed on someone who was taught an action was right? No. Is a morally-wrong action still objectively wrong even if the person committing the offense does not know it? Yes, it is still wrong, even if they are not culpable because of their ignorance.

Likewise, people who attempt same-sex marriage commit a moral wrong, even if they go ahead with the offense having been assured by their shepherds that it is OK or even if they are taught it is a good that is every bit the equal of actual marriage. They may not be held culpable, if they were only doing their best, but the act is still wrong and the wrong of the offense still does its damage. (How do I know there is damage? Because the laws of God are not arbitrary, as human rules are.)

 

[Contarini]

You do not need to start with Sodom. You can start with Our Lord’s answer to the question of divorce:

Exactly.

Edwin

 

[Protestor]

OK. But just because there is a “legal definition” doesn’t make it a fact. The law used to define African Americans as chattel property… No law of man can reduce a human being made in the image of God to property… The same holds for marriage. The churches have a right to their own definitions of marriage, and if you support separation of church and state

They used religion to support their legal claim to slavery. I have heard people support slavery still, but they hide their form by saying it would be held to the biblical standard. Your example is slightly different or enough different that I going to bring it up. Slavery inherently takes away the rights of people. While marriage equality gives rights to people. You are correct in saying that making something a legal definition does not make something a fact.

Castigating… seriously? You have a right to your own definition and a right not to preform the ceremony. You have my full support on these 2 things.

Do you believe that being gay or participating in homosexual acts should be outlawed? If not, why? Also why do you suspend your moral judgement there and not for marriage.

Seperately I think bringing OT scripture in is wrong here i.e. Sodom. The sins of Sodom are much different than the sins of homosexuals today who wish to be in monogamous relationships and be afforded the same status legally as heterosexuals.

 

[EasterJoy]

…homosexuals today who wish to be in monogamous relationships and be afforded the same status legally as heterosexuals.

They want homosexuality to be deemed the legal equivalent of heterosexuality. That is a lie so patently obvious that it is a wonderment that someone with the most rudimentary knowledge of mammalian biology cannot see the difference.

The truth is that everyone is quite capable of seeing the difference, but they are too intimidated by prevailing political fashion to the contrary to speak up and be thought backward for saying it. It is the Emperor’s New Clothes all over again!

 

[ltwin]

They used religion to support their legal claim to slavery.

Some Americans used Scripture out of context to create a moral argument for slavery, but this only occurred after Christians began to organize to stop slavery through the Abolitionist movement. It was in response to Abolitionism that Southerners began to promote a moral argument for slavery based on misreading Scripture. Before Abolitionism started in earnest, even Southerners were willing to admit that slavery was an inhumane institution, they just weren’t willing to bring economic ruin on themselves to get rid of it. Prime examples are Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.

I have heard people support slavery still, but they hide their form by saying it would be held to the biblical standard.

Well, those people are idiots. Worse they obviously haven’t read the Bible. The Apostle Paul is quite clear that those who enslave others have committed a sin. This, by the way, is in the same passage where he mentions homosexuality as sinful as well (1 Timothy 1:10). Why would any Christian support re-legalizing the slave trade (even if it followed a “biblical standard”) when slave trading is explicitly called a sin in the Bible?

Your example is slightly different or enough different that I going to bring it up. Slavery inherently takes away the rights of people. While marriage equality gives rights to people. You are correct in saying that making something a legal definition does not make something a fact.

Governments can give civil rights (as opposed to natural rights) to anyone they want. Of course, as Christians, we would pray that our government did not “create civil rights” that contradict the law of nature and nature’s God.

But putting that aside, the question of how a government grants new civil rights is just as important as what new rights it grants. Under the Constitution, the United States is a democratic republic, which means that the majority decides what rights people have. Furthermore, we are a federal republic, which means that certain questions, such as marriage law, is reserved to the states. The manner in which the Supreme Court “created marriage equality” is abhorrent to me as someone who actually cares about our Constitution.

Castigating… seriously? You have a right to your own definition and a right not to preform the ceremony. You have my full support on these 2 things.

Well, I’m glad you cleared that up.

Do you believe that being gay or participating in homosexual acts should be outlawed? If not, why?

I don’t think it should be criminalized. Neither do I think that adultery should be criminalized. Nor do I think that lying should be criminalized. I believe these sins should not be publicly celebrated, but I don’t think we should go around criminalizing everything that people do wrong. That is not the type of society I want to live in.

Also why do you suspend your moral judgement there and not for marriage.

I believe people who struggle with homosexual attraction should be loved and helped–not punished. That does not mean I “suspend moral judgment.” I have made a moral judgment, which is that homosexual acts are sinful. That is a moral judgment. But that moral judgment does not require me to support the demonization of homosexuals. I choose to love people even if they live in ways I think are wrong.

Marriage is different. Same-sex marriage is not an individual matter but a matter of public policy. It is the government saying, “we think this is something that should be normalized.” I disagree with that, and I wish the Supreme Court would have stayed out of the political debate and allowed the American people to have a democratic debate on the merits or lack thereof of same-sex marriage.

 

[Protestor]

Some Americans used Scripture out of context to create a moral argument for slavery, but this only occurred after Christians began to organize to stop slavery through the Abolitionist movement.

I will refer to your knowledge of history since it is not a subject I care to much about. The part “only after” seems wrong.

Under the Constitution, the United States is a democratic republic, which means that the majority decides what rights people have.

Pretty sure this is actually incorrect. As far as I can remember the USA’s government is set up to protect minority faction from being denied right by the majority faction I could be summarizing James Madison incorrectly though or wrongly applying his idea.

I don’t think it should be criminalized. Neither do I think that adultery should be criminalized. Nor do I think that lying should be criminalized. I believe these sins should not be publicly celebrated, but I don’t think we should go around criminalizing everything that people do wrong. That is not the type of society I want to live in.

Okay immorral not not criminal.

I wish the Supreme Court would have stayed out of the political debate and allowed the American people to have a democratic debate on the merits or lack thereof of same-sex marriage.

I disagree

 

[ltwin]

I will refer to your knowledge of history since it is not a subject I care to much about. The part “only after” seems wrong.

Are you aware that Thomas Jefferson included the following in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence? The Continental Congress decided not to add it since southerners had themselves a slave economy, but still–this comes from a slave-owning southerner himself and he thought it important enough to list in his grievances against the British king.

*He [the King of Britain] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation hither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of INFIDEL powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative * for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.
*

In 1810, Edmund Randolph (a governor of Virginia and US Secretary of State), reflecting on the difference between southern views on slavery in his day versus earlier periods in American history, made this remarkable statement in his History of Virginia:

*Nor yet were they [people of African descent] suspected, as in the arrogant and impious philosophy of this day, to be in the lowest grade of human existence.
The . . . violent heats of summer, and the overwhelming indolence of white men, most of whom came hither with the allurement of amassing gold without toil, beget a suspicion that those circumstances were [the real reason] the inhabitants purchased these Negroes as slaves and spread over the character of our country colors more indelible than the sable skin which served as a pretext for their unnatural debasement. The poison from this small event will be seen to diffuse itself in a variety of destructive shapes [over the later history of Virginia]. *

In 1773, Patrick Henry (also a Virginian) stated the following:

*Is it not amazing that, at a time when the rights of humanity are defined and understood with precision, in a country above all others fond of liberty, in such an age, we find men, professing a religion the most humane, mild, meek, gentle, and generous, adopting a principle so repugnant to humanity as it is inconsistent with the Bible and destructive to liberty? . . . Would any one believe that I am master of slaves of my own purchase? I am drawn along by the general inconvenience of living without them. I will not, I cannot, justify it; however, culpable my conduct, I will so far pay my ‘devoir’ to virtue as to own the excellence and rectitude of her precepts, and to lament my want of conformity to them. I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil; everything we can do is to improve it, if it happens in our day; if not, let us transmit to our descendants, together with our slaves, a pity for their unhappy lot, and an abhorrence of slavery. We owe to the purity of our religion, to show that it is at variance with that law which warrants slavery.
*

Once again, Thomas Jefferson reveals his thoughts on slavery, this time in his Notes on the State of Virginia Query 18:

*Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and that his justice cannot sleep forever . . . I think a change already perceptible, since the origin of the present revolution. The spirit of the master is abating, that of the slave rising from the auspices of heaven, for a total emancipation, and that this is disposed, in the order of events, to be with the consent of the masters, rather than by their extirpation.
*

Pretty sure this is actually incorrect. As far as I can remember the USA’s government is set up to protect minority faction from being denied right by the majority faction I could be summarizing James Madison incorrectly though or wrongly applying his idea.*

Yes, but the majority decided to give the minority those Constitutional protections that are included in the Bill of Rights. It was the choice of the majority to take certain issues and place them outside of the democratic process for the protection of the minority. That is how its supposed to work.

If you want to extend these Constitutional protections and ensure that they can never again be subjected to the whims of a tyrannical majority faction, then you amend the Constitution. That is how our system is supposed to work. Those powers not listed in the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people.