Why should same-sex marriage be illegal?

[Rau]

Bigot: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. That’s not name calling, it’s what someone is. And tell me: how is calling homosexuals abominations acceptable but calling that person a big not? That sounds like a double standard.

The person is not an abomination. The sexual activity between two men has been called that.

I find nothing unfair about disliking the thought of two men engaging in sexual acts. It is an honest reaction. Such acts are in opposition to one of the great Faith’s of the world.

Also, you don’t have to be gay to care about gay rights. Just not close-minded.

No objection to gay rights. I do object to my right to politely decline involvement in their wedding ceremony being trashed.

 

[Thorolfr]

Such acts are in opposition to one of the great Faith’s of the world.

In opposition to some denominations of one of the great Faith’s of the world.

 

[Rau]

So, you want to be allowed to be a bigot because you’re a Catholic? That’s not very Christian of you.

I would not wish to be compelled to contribute to the celebration of an act I find morally offensive. Would you wish to be compelled in that fashion?

 

[Rau]

In opposition to some denominations of one of the great Faith’s of the world.

I am yet to read any theology that describes the manner in which God’s will is manifest in the sexual acts of two men. Rather, I see an acquiescing to the call for SSM in a number of smaller denominations, and even this with nil foundation in Chtistian faith tradition.

 

[Thorolfr]

I am yet to read any theology that describes the manner in which God’s will is manifest in the sexual acts of two men. Rather, I see an acquiescing to the call for SSM in a number of smaller denominations, and even this with nil foundation in Chtistian faith tradition.

The ELCA, the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church USA and the United Church of Christ are hardly “smaller denominations”. They are three of the largest Mainline Protestant churches in the US. Combined they have about 8 and a half million members, not nearly as large as the Catholic Church, of course, but not just “smaller denominations”.

 

[Rau]

The ELCA, the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church USA and the United Church of Christ are hardly “smaller denominations”. They are three of the largest Mainline Protestant churches in the US. Combined they have about 8 and a half million members, not nearly as large as the Catholic Church, of course, but not just “smaller denominations”.

As you point out they are relatively small. These churches express no meaningful theology on the issue I raised. The ECLA, the last time I researched it, holds a multitude of positions on this issue. Individual ministers are permitted to operate in respect of something as fundamental as marriage based on their personal position (pro or anti SSM). Hardly a committed position, more one which offers something to please everyone.

 

[Thorolfr]

These churches express no meaningful theology on the issue I raised.

Not meaningful to you…

 

[Rau]

Not meaningful to you…

If you’d like to provide some references, and set out the theology for us, the forum could offer an assessment if you feel mine is inadequate.

And while you’re at it, perhaps the foundation in Christian faith tradition for sexual relationships between persons of the same sex could be set out. I’m fairly sure there is not a single positive example of such in Scripture.

Thor, I don’t have a quarrel with you for making your choices - only when you seek to claim a basis which is simply not there.

 

[Thorolfr]

If you’d like to provide some references, and set out the theology for us, the forum could offer an assessment if you feel mine is inadequate.

And while you’re at it, perhaps the foundation in Christian faith tradition for sexual relationships between persons of the same sex could be set out. I’m fairly sure there is not a single positive example of such in Scripture.

Thor, I don’t have a quarrel with you for making your choices - only when you seek to claim a basis which is simply not there.

Not everything that has a foundation in Christian faith tradition is worth keeping. It is not a perfect faith tradition.

Take the Christian faith tradition on women:

Ephesians 5:22 Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior.

1 Corinthians 11:3-7: But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife…For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man.

As one commentator on Thomas Aquinas has pointed out:

When in 1 Corinthians 11:3 St. Paul says that “man is the head of woman,” and in Ephesians 5:22 that “a husband is the head of his wife,” Aquinas takes it as evident that if men are meant to rule, it can only be by virtue of intellectual superiority.

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

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

Or how about slavery:

Titus 2:9-10: Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, 10 not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior.

St. Augustine: “if you see your slave living badly, what other punishment will you curb him with, if not the lash? Use it: do. God allows it. In fact he is angered if you don’t. But do it in a loving rather than a vindictive spirit.” (Servumque ipsum tuum, si male viventem videris, non poena aliqua, non verberibus refrenabis? fiat hoc, fiat : admittit deus, imo reprehendit, si no fiat ; sed animo dilectionis fac : non animo ultionis.)

Kyle Harper, *Slavery in the Late Roman World, AD 275-425 *(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), p. 230, from Corpus christianoruam, series Latina (Turnhout, 1953-), 40: 1464-6

 

[chris62]

Bigot: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. That’s not name calling, it’s what someone is. And tell me: how is calling homosexuals abominations acceptable but calling that person a big not? That sounds like a double standard.

I love how you’re so confident in your beliefs. The arrogance is almost visible. Homosexuality is not a disorder, and yes, although two men cannot procreate, that does not mean they cannot be discriminated against. Also, you don’t have to be gay to care about gay rights. Just not close-minded.

According to your definition, you have perfectly described yourself as a bigot, as you strongly and unfairly dislike people who adhere to the belief that homosexuality is a disorder. But I won’t call you that. I love all people (well, try to) but it is what some people do that I dislike. I love homosexuals but dislike homosexuality. I love drug addicts but dislike the taking of drugs. I love alcoholics but dislike it when they are drink-dependant. The world is full of people who dislike the actions of others.
Yet you call people who disagree with your opinion a bigot. “That sounds like a double standard,” to use your words.

You say how you love how I’m so confident in my beliefs. Thank you, but I did not mention anything to do with my beliefs. The fact that homosexuals cannot procreate is a decision made by Mother Nature. That is why homosexuality is a disorder. It is not part of the Natural Order. As I have said before, that is why SSM should be illegal, and is in the vast majority of the globe, as it normalises a disorder.

If you want to read what SSM does when it is legalised you should read the following:

massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm_2012/SSM_Mass_2012.pdf

There is a whole thread on this website about the Disorder of Homosexuality (probably several) which ran for months.
In it, there was a post which was a recording from a member of the AMA as to why homosexuality was de-listed as a disorder.
The decision, he reveals, had nothing whatsoever to do with a medical or psychological finding, but it was changed after a demonstration by gays.

You can also listen to a talk on the impacts of children and society when marriage is redefined.

ruthinstitute.org/podcasts/the-impact-of-re-defining-marrriage-on-children-and-society

Hopefully, in the interests of fairness, you will hear that other side of the argument and not be so “close-minded,” as you put it.

 

[Rau]

Not everything that has a foundation in Christian faith tradition is worth keeping. It is not a perfect faith tradition.

Take the Christian faith tradition on women:

Ephesians 5:22 Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior.

1 Corinthians 11:3-7: But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife…For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man.

As one commentator on Thomas Aquinas has pointed out:

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

Or how about slavery:

Titus 2:9-10: Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, 10 not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior.

St. Augustine: “if you see your slave living badly, what other punishment will you curb him with, if not the lash? Use it: do. God allows it. In fact he is angered if you don’t. But do it in a loving rather than a vindictive spirit.” (Servumque ipsum tuum, si male viventem videris, non poena aliqua, non verberibus refrenabis? fiat hoc, fiat : admittit deus, imo reprehendit, si no fiat ; sed animo dilectionis fac : non animo ultionis.)

Kyle Harper, *Slavery in the Late Roman World, AD 275-425 *(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), p. 230, from Corpus christianoruam, series Latina (Turnhout, 1953-), 40: 1464-6

Sounds like a switching of the subject with a bit of obfuscation? Is there any foundation in Christianity, any role models, any theology favourable to sexual relations between two men (or women).

 

[Thorolfr]

Sounds like a switching of the subject with a bit of obfuscation? Is there any foundation in Christianity, any role models, any theology favourable to sexual relations between two men (or women).

My point it that Christian tradition is not all that commendable on a number of different topics. So why hold it up as a model for human sexuality?

 

[Wretched_One_1]

So, you believe that “degenerates” infiltrated an organisation and tricked them into thinking that homosexuality is not a disorder?
That is absolutely what happened. Alfred Kinsey was a homosexual & a pederast. It’s common knowledge. NPR did a piece not to long ago about “courageous” closeted homosexuals who infiltrated the APA & protested until the APA started to lighten up on the recognition of homosexuality as deviance. Even when I was a PC pagan who worshipped @ the altar of science I remember thinking isn’t science supposed to be conducted by dispassionate observers seeking truth? If I’m a shizophrenic who enjoyed my schizophrenia would I really be the best one to determine
whether or not schizophrenia was a disorder?
… The mental gymnastics needed for you to come to your conclusion is stunning.

While I’m here, how do you define a “degenerate”? Anyone that disagrees with you on this topic?

degenerate
having lost the physical, mental, or moral qualities considered normal and desirable; showing evidence of decline. One who revels in their deviance & attempts to poison a community by normalizing said deviance.

 

[Rau]

My point it that Christian tradition is not all that commendable on a number of different topics. So why hold it up as a model for human sexuality?

If you think slavery is an element of Christisn faith tradition, your point escapes me.

This may help explain the proper sense of Trafition:
catholic.com/tracts/scripture-and-tradition

 

[Thorolfr]

If you think slavery is an element of Christisn faith tradition, your point escapes me.

This may help explain the proper sense of Trafition:
catholic.com/tracts/scripture-and-tradition

If you don’t like the issue of slavery, how about the Christian tradition that women should submit to men and not have any authority over them, that they are intellectually inferior to men, etc.? I can find lots of quotes to support this Christian tradition from Thomas Aquinas to John Calvin.

 

[Rau]

If you don’t like the issue of slavery, how about the Christian tradition that women should submit to men, that they are intellectually inferior to men, etc.? I can find lots of quotes to support this Christian tradition from Thomas Aquinas to John Calvin.

Read the item I provided to you so you at least understand the meaning of Tradition.

Then let me know if anything in Scripture or Tradition or the theology of any Christian faith addresses favourably the sexual relationship between 2 men (or women). Do Scripture or Tradition address who may marry? Marriage of man to man?

 

[Wretched_One_1]

degenerate
having lost the physical, mental, or moral qualities considered normal and desirable; showing evidence of decline. One who revels in their deviance & attempts to poison a community by normalizing said deviance.

Correction not NPR but
This American Life #204 “81 words”

 

[Wretched_One_1]

So, you believe that “degenerates” infiltrated an organisation and tricked them into thinking that homosexuality is not a disorder?*

That is absolutely what happened. Alfred Kinsey was a homosexual & a pederast. It’s common knowledge. This American Life did a piece not to long ago(#204 “81 words” ) about “courageous” closeted homosexuals who infiltrated the APA & protested until the APA started to lighten up on the recognition of homosexuality as a disorder. Even when I was a PC pagan who worshiped @ the altar of science I remember thinking isn’t science supposed to be conducted by dispassionate observers seeking truth? If I’m a schizophrenic who enjoyed my schizophrenia would I really be the best one to determine*
whether or not schizophrenia was a disorder?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Not everything that has a foundation in Christian faith tradition is worth keeping. It is not a perfect faith tradition.

Take the Christian faith tradition on women:

Ephesians 5:22 Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior.

1 Corinthians 11:3-7: But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife…For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man.

As one commentator on Thomas Aquinas has pointed out:

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

Or how about slavery:

Titus 2:9-10: Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, 10 not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior.

St. Augustine: “if you see your slave living badly, what other punishment will you curb him with, if not the lash? Use it: do. God allows it. In fact he is angered if you don’t. But do it in a loving rather than a vindictive spirit.” (Servumque ipsum tuum, si male viventem videris, non poena aliqua, non verberibus refrenabis? fiat hoc, fiat : admittit deus, imo reprehendit, si no fiat ; sed animo dilectionis fac : non animo ultionis.)

Kyle Harper, *Slavery in the Late Roman World, AD 275-425 *(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), p. 230, from Corpus christianoruam, series Latina (Turnhout, 1953-), 40: 1464-6

Context is very valuable.

Regarding Ephesians 5:22, here is what Pope John Paul ll said:

Today we begin a more detailed analysis of the passage of the Letter to the Ephesians 5:21-23. The author, addressing husbands and wives, recommends them to be “subject to one another out of reverence for Christ” (5:21)…
The mutual relations of husband and wife should flow from their common relationship with Christ. The author of the letter speaks of the “reverence for Christ” in a sense analogous to that when he speaks of the “fear of God”. In this case it is not a question of fear which is a defensive attitude before the threat of evil, but it is above all a case of respect for holiness, for the sacrum…

The mystery of Christ, penetrating their hearts, engendering in them that holy “reverence for Christ” (namely, pietas). should lead them to “be subject to one another”: the mystery of Christ, that is, the mystery of the choice from eternity of each of them in Christ “to be the adoptive sons” of God.

In fact we read: “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord” (Eph. 5:22). In saying this, the author does not intend to say that the husband is the “lord” of the wife and that the interpersonal pact proper to marriage is a pact of the domination of the husband over the wife.

Instead, he expresses a different concept; that is, that the wife can and should find in her relationship with Christ - who is the one Lord of both the spouses - the motivation of the relationship with her husband which flows from the very essence of marriage and of the family.

Such a relationship, however, is not one of one-sided domination. Marriage, according to the Letter to the Ephesians, excludes that element of the pact which was a burden and at times, does not cease to be a burden on this institution.

The husband and the wife are in fact “subject to one another”, and are mutually subordinated to one another. The source of this mutual subjection is to be found in Christian pietas, and its expression is love.

The author of the letter underlines this love in a special way, in addressing himself to husbands. He writes: “You husbands love your wives…”, and by expressing himself in this way, he removes any fear that might have arisen (given the modern sensitivity) from the previous phrase: “Wives, be subject to your husbands”.

Love excludes every kind of subjection whereby the wife might become a servant or a slave of the husband, an object of unilateral domination.

Love makes the husband simultaneously subject to the wife, and thereby subject to the Lord himself, just as the wife to the husband.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=5531

In regards to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, here is an excerpt of a response Bro Ignatius Mary, OLSM gave to somebody who asked about the Corinthians verse:

St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 was dealing with a specific problem in the Corinthian Church but was also establishing a norm based upon the doctrinal economy taught by Christ. St. Paul was not saying that women could not speak. In fact he recognizes women speaking in the form of prophecy in 1 Corinthians 11:5. This passage in 1 Cor 14 is referring to women in the role as official teachers in the liturgy. This is made a little more clear in St. Paul’s teaching to Timothy (cf. 1 Timothy 2:12) in which he says that “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men…” In both instances St. Paul is talking about the Church assembly, the liturgy. Thus, his teaching is not a blanket teaching that woman cannot teach or have authority outside of the liturgy and Church hierarchy. It is okay, then, for women to be captains of industry with authority over men, bosses, managers, teachers in universities, teachers in seminaries, etc. The prohibition is teaching in the liturgy (e.g., the homily) and authority in the Church hierarchy (the charism of governance the belongs to the bishops).

oswc.org/stmike/qa/fs/viewanswer.asp?QID=599

 

[_Abyssinia]

In regards to the Titan verse and some other verses regarding slavery, there appears to be some question over the Greek translation: biblepages.net/eoa162.htm

But if you take the Titan verse as it what it literally says and trust the various translations regarding it’s reference to actual slaves, consider the following:

Paul’s focus was on “adorning the doctrine of God” (Titus 2:10). This means that Paul was trying to support the spread of the gospel, which is the greatest conceivable good. Paul is not condoning slavery; he is explaining how to spread the gospel underthe institution of slavery.

evidenceunseen.com/bible-difficulties-2/nt-difficulties/1-2-timothy-titus-philemon-hebrews-james-1-2-peter/titus-29-does-the-bible-support-slavery/

These verses suggest that it might have been common practice for slaves to be “selective” in their submission, back-chat their masters, steal from them etc. This is understandable from a human perspective. But God can use it for his glory when we treat, even “masters” in a way that points them to God. Consider the slave girl of 2 Kings 5:1-5, what she might have done to her master (eg poison him!) but what she did do for him, and what happened as a result. And remember Joseph, who even when he was second in the land of Egypt, was still a slave, yet always worked for the good of his masters.

kallaroochurch.org.au/sermons/?download&file_name=Titus%202%3B9-10%20Study.doc

This may be seen as taking this thread too off topic though. So I’m not going to discuss this any further here.