Homosexual marriage acceptable to God?
Asdf, I guess it is alright with you if I consider you an apostate Christian. I mean, I should think that you should be able to present in the realm of ideas here on this board a Christian presentation of homosexual acts being acceptable in God's site by Sacred Scripture and by the consistency of which Christendom has practiced since the Church began to the present. If you have the "truth" in regards to homosexual marriages as sacramental, I would love to hear it.
So Be It.
I can't speak for adsf, but if you must consider those who disagree with you and your interpretation of the Bible, belief and faith to be apostate... then SO BE IT (by you).Originally Posted by Columcille
That happens enough in this world, and God (yes, the Creator) is and will be the final arbiter in all things.
Correct. He is, and His will can be determined even now, by his revelation to the nation of Israel and through the testimony of his apostles and his Church throughout the ages in the Church's consistency on morals. It is not my own interpretation, that is the fundamental aspect of Protestantism. I, as a Catholic, hold to something greater than myself. The sacramental grace I recieve from the sacraments are only beneficial when my soul is in complete communion with the teachings of my Church. Those Catholics that are ill instructed, may receive the sacramental grace, but when properly catachized and instructed, any idea that one can approach Catholicism like a buffet line and pick and choose those aspects they want to agree or disagree on is a bad Catholic that needs to confess to the priest or just leave the Church to graze with the other Protestants.
At any rate Austin, I wish you well. I do not have a lot of time left before I become active duty. If you absolutely feel it necessary to divert from the OP and go on a t-i-t-for-tat, I'll give you the last word, I will not answer you unless it reflects some substance to answering the intentions of the original post. Besides, I am going to have the last word anyways, just not in the forum. I'm taking my last word to Him in hopes that while I am away for a year that I can expect great things from you. May you have an enjoyable anomie that will lead you into a fuller understanding, blessings, and fruitful relationship with the Lord Jesus.
Thanks for the Intellectual Exchanges.
Peace and grace to you Columcille. Stay safe, and thank you for your service.
Last edited by Austin Canes; 12-10-2009 at 04:06 AM. Reason: grammar corrected
Hi Columcille,
I'm sorry I never took the time to methodically make my case for why it is my belief that the Church should put its blessing on committed, monogamous, faithful, lifelong covenantal same-sex relationships (whether or not the Church wants to give that the label "marriage"), based on my foundation in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral (Scripture, Tradition, Reason, Experience).
It doesn't look like that will be able to happen prior to your departure, but I'd still like to get back to that eventually.
You may be interested in a series of articles by a Presbyterian minister called "Not a Sin". He goes through the various sources of influence to both "sides" to the issue. I consider it among the best overviews I've seen, and my forthcoming apologia for same-sex relationships would be along these lines. Here's the index/introduction:
Behind all the arguments about ordination and marriage lies the basic argument over whether or not homosexuality is a sin.In any case, shalom and all good to you as you leave for active duty. Thank you for your service, stay safe, and may YHWH bless and keep you.
It is not.
In this series of articles I will deal in a brief way with the variety of sources usually employed to make a case one way or another. I will ultimately suggest that the best way of determining what is sinful is careful moral reasoning, and I will point out that the dominant modes of moral reasoning on the right - divine command (a kind of deontology), and natural law (another kind of deonotology), are faulty.
Here is a taste of what's to come:
The Bible
Conservatives insist the primary source for arguing that homosexuality is a sin is the Bible. Every relevant passage has been carefully disected and analyzed by people on both sides. I will not rehash that work, but I will point out some big problems with using the Bible as a primary source for moral reasoning. In fact, I contend that our values have little to do with what scripture says, that moral reasoning and value judgments always precede our reception of scripture and claiming the Bible as a source, rather than a support is a lie.
Aesthetics
One example of value judgments prior to input from supports like the Bible, is our personal reaction of enjoyment or distaste upon encountering homosexuals. Look at the picture at the top of this article. How does it make you feel? Aesthetics have a huge impact, whether we admit it or not, on our moral judgments. This isn't all bad. It is a good thing for people to be sensitive to violence - to naturally and instantaneously abhor it. But these primitive, instinctual reactions are far from perfect, and they need to be analyzed. Aesthetic values are certainly no replacement for conscientious moral reasoning.
Biology
Evidence is growing that homosexuality is biologically conditioned. This is one topic which usually gets brought up by progressives to argue that homosexuality is not a sin. It is indeed relevant, but it is far from a slam dunk. It is not as simple as eye-color, nor as neutral. A genetic predisposition for same-gender attraction doesn't automatically make homosexual relationships morally neutral. Biology is an important counterbalance to natural law arguments, however.
Natural Law
One of the most popular arguments for deeming homosexuality sinful can be summed up in the catchy slogan, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." Complementarianism asserts that because *****es fit into ******s they should always and only be used that way. I admit that it is difficult for me to treat these arguments with seriousness because they are so shabby, but I will do my best to fairly point out why Natural Law is a horrible mode for approaching the topic of sin or human sexuality, or almost anything.
Teleology
Does homosexuality harm anyone? That ought to be a defining question in the debate, yet it is rarely addressed, and when it is the answers given are so poor I am apalled. A partner question is, does homosexuality benefit anyone? Are there positive or negative consequences to homosexual relationships? Can homosexual relationships even be differentiated in their consequences from heterosexual ones?
Virtue
What kind of person does one become by accepting and living out a homosexual iden***y? Is there evidence in the lives of homosexuals that homosexuality impacts the development of virtue in any way? When we have gotten here we are really beginning to consider matters that will help us show why homosexuality is not a sin.
Gay Culture
As a sort of appendix to the main subject I will briefly put down some thoughts on "gay culture". What is it? What is good about it? What isn't? I venture into this area with some hesitance because I am not an insider to the gay community, but I feel like I can say some relevant, respectful things.
God’s seal is truth.
– Talmud
to answer the question: no it isn't.
to pose another question: is homosexual marriage a threat to hetrosexual unions?
let's see your answers.
Homosexual marriage isn't a threat to anybody or anything. If you feel threatened by homosexual marriage, well, you're an *****. There really is no other way to say it.
It is a threat to the stability of the family. Homosexual marriage is an offense to which all children born should benefit from the stability of a heterosexual union ordained by God. The fact that Inciting Riots cannot see its corrosive effects on the family life only goes to show you the fact that we are engaged in a culture war. To love IncitingRiots means to bless him, despite his cursing us; to pray for him, despite his desires that stem from bitterness. So IncitingRiots, you are a testimony for us. I thank you for the opportunity that I can pray for you, and I hope God blesses you with the joy of his presence. May you one day become like St. Paul, whom as Saul gladly persecuted and lead many Christians to a holy and blessed martyr's death.
Care to elaborate on how exactly it is a threat to the stability of the family? There is nothing that proves that homosexual relationships are any more "stable" than heterosexual relationships. Just look at the divorce rates, the number of single parents out there etc. And what about homosexual couples that do not want children; are they too a threat to the stability of the family?
You are welcome for the opportunity to pray for me. I suggest doing something more constructive. Go for a jog, build something, curl up in bed with a good book, organize the garage - just do something. However, if you must pray for someone, here's an idea: Instead of praying for me, get a phone book, pick out a random name and pray for that person.
Inciting Riots, a family, in the growth and stability of a society rests in both a husband, wife, and children. A married couple is not a family. We do out of respect sometimes talk about extended family, such as friends, but it is not the same thing. Every person may be a member of a family, but that does not mean they have their own as a parent. Society therefore recognizes heterosexual marriages across universal boundaries to be the necessary tradition that maintains the respect, and stability for its own survival. Homosexuality seeks to mimic what it cannot produce, hence it breaks down the traditional role of "family." It is a dysfunction, a quirk. The fact that marriages are not maintaining its sanc***y is a part and parcel of the culture war from the side at which you wage. The principles from which you seek to encourage homosexual unions is an***hetical to healthy family stability, which not only includes the heterosexual marriage, but the family unit itself. Family use to mean something where the respect for parents by the children produced selfless and noble characteristics. You are in essense the product of the indoctrination of educators that have produced as Lewis claims in the "Abolition of Man" such "men without chests."
As far as my praying for you, I am a firm believer in prayer. The intention of the heart of a person crying out to their maker is a sign of respect. God knows the needs of every individual, but we are his hands and his feet. As such, praying for people in a phone book without encountering them is impersonal. We have some dialogue here to make it much more personal. Since you commented on my prayer intentions for you, it indicates to me a spiritual reality that prayer is effective. I have never turned down prayer from anyone, even when I personally doubted my faith: I figured even in my doubt, that if there is no god listening, it is a waste of time telling others not to pray for me or trying to persuade them not to pray for me for as many reasons as the one you just gave. You don't like people praying for you, probably makes you feel uncomfortable at the thought, I submit such uncomfort is a byproduct of something you understand unconsciously, but cannot pinpoint rationally. Why make all the fuss otherwise? Ignoring it would have been the most rational decision.
After reading all those pla***udes I still see nothing that backs up your assertion that homosexual marriages are a "threat" of any kind to anything.
Really? I must now ask you to tell me from which principles am I arguing. I think I know where I am coming from better than you do. The fact remains is there is no reason why gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married. You Christians (or any other people of faith) have no right to legislate your "morality" on the rest of the world. EVERYONE has the right to love and be loved and EVERYONE has the right to express that love by getting married as long as the marriage is between two consenting adults. If to guys, or two girls want to get married it doesn't affect you at all so just leave them alone. You bigots make me sick to my stomach. Seig Heil!The principles from which you seek to encourage homosexual unions is an***hetical to healthy family stability, which not only includes the heterosexual marriage, but the family unit itself.
I like the way you throw the word "love" so nonchalently. Must be a mantra or cliche by now. In the culture war that you wage, if you were in agreement with the Christian on this of what actually cons***utes a "family unit" and the roles and responsibilities expected, then there would be no need address the side you are on. You are against the Christian and those nonChristians that do not approve of homosexual marriages, hence your arguments are naturally condescending. Would you please describe to me the natural boundaries of what cons***utes a "family unit?" I think it clear that a family unit involves mother, father, and children. Homosexual unions rob children from other families to engage in homosexual acts. Homosexual partners can not ever create the family unit, two fathers and children or two mothers and children are not a family unit, they only hope to mimic it since the love cannot ever generate children of their own. Therefore, heterosexual marriages, whether they generate their own children or not, at least have the capacity in adoption to generate a real family as a mother, father, and children is capable. To me the ultimate goal of homosexual lobbying is not the homosexual marriage, but the adoption issue. They must first gain legal marriage status if they are to further their cause to appear "normal" in context of a "family unit."
So homosexual couples will sneak into the houses of heterosexual couples and steal their children so they can force them to be gay too? Where in the world do you get that idea from. I have heard some ****** things in my life that has got to be amongst the top ten.Homosexual unions rob children from other families to engage in homosexual acts.
And what of gay couples that do not want kids? I personally know quite a few.Homosexual partners can not ever create the family unit, two fathers and children or two mothers and children are not a family unit, they only hope to mimic it since the love cannot ever generate children of their own.
I would also like to point out that your definition of a family is rather limited. I consider my friends to be family. To me a family is not determined by these "roles" you expect them to follow. A family is a group of people that cares for each other. Your family is the people you can count on. Who they choose to have sex with doesn't matter one bit.
It seems apparent you cannot fathom my position. It is rather clear from a child's point of view being raised by parents that he is part of a family. It is the most desirable for a child to be reared by his biological mother and father, for those who due to the sinfulness of parents, economical disadvantage, and other such circumstances that leads them to adoption, the next most desirable would be with a mother and father figure. What makes a mother and father figure desirable for adoption and for a healthy biological upbringing except for the fact that it is what a family is made up of. I have already discussed "extended family" and that we say such as a means of respects, but it is not the same. The robbing is the indoctrination of the culture war of which you participate in promoting. You obviously recognize that a child is a biological product of a female and male and that such a relationship is preferred. To undermine such a preference is to undermine the family unit by influencing the young impressionable minds in a way that robs them of their potential for creating their own family, in respecting the yin and yang of creation in male and female.
So now you are trying to say that kids raised by gay parents will also grow up to be gay? Can you prove this? A friend of mine was raised by a gay father. He is now the father of two children and they are doing quite well.
No, I am saying that the child will be indoctrinated that gayness is ok, which it is not. Your friend had a biological mother and a biological father, I do not think you can prove to me that two male sperm or two female eggs are going to produce your friend. The natural order only supports the family unit to be mother, father, and child. How blind are you?
Why is it not okay? Because some old book that was wrong about pretty much everything it purports says it's wrong? And I am not trying to say that two males or two females can produce a baby and I don't see where you got such a ludicrous assumption from. There are plenty of species of animal where there is no "family unit". The "natural order" doesn't support only one thing. How blind are you? I sincerely hope that you have a child that turns out to be gay. Oh delicious irony.
The natural order for our species. We are not an asexual species like the amoeba. The preferred family unit is mother, father, and child. If it were not preferred, there would be no need for parents in a divorce to request child support. The dysfunction of such a family unit attests to the fact that child support is deemed necessary precisely because the nature of a married couple to support each other for the care of children. I am sure it is just as preferred that infants recieve milk from their mother than by formula, and the role of the father as protector and provider is fulfilling in its own rite. It is not an old book, it is societies longstanding tradition across the cultural divide. I know you get it that children are procreated by a female and male, what you don't seem to get is that is the natural make-up of a family. Your support of homosexual marriages is an undermining of that natural order. What you rant at as being unfair is simply how life operates when it is efficiently operated. Don't be mad at me for the natural order, blame God for creating it that way, and don't blame God for what is not his doing either, much offenses is the blame of people's own sinfulness. You don't seem very happy here, so I must assume that what you lack is your own deficiency by the very sins you engage in both against the cardinal virtues as well as the theological virtues. I recognize that I am a sinner and I need God's help, but you on the other hand it is quite different. It is lonely at the top, so I hope you come down and mingle with the rest of us every now and then in a more cordial fashion.
So it is a matter of monetary support? A gay couple could easily provide the financial support necessary to raise a child. In fact, if they couldn't then they wouldn't be allowed to adopt a child. Yet heterosexual couples are allowed to pump out kid after kid that they can not afford and no one stops them.The preferred family unit is mother, father, and child. If it were not preferred, there would be no need for parents in a divorce to request child support.
You can call a duck a cow but it still quacks.It is not an old book, it is societies longstanding tradition across the cultural divide.
If God created it that way then he created gay people therefore the blame lies with God. If you God is so omnipotent then why does it make mistakes like homosexuality?Don't be mad at me for the natural order, blame God for creating it that way, and don't blame God for what is not his doing either, much offenses is the blame of people's own sinfulness.
I lack my own deficiency? Deficiency in what? What does that even mean? Deficiencies are often bad things so lacking a deficiency is probably a good thing. I would much rather lack a mental deficiency than relish in one like so many people seem to do.You don't seem very happy here, so I must assume that what you lack is your own deficiency by the very sins you engage in both against the cardinal virtues as well as the theological virtues.
I stated the preferred was the way God made it, all corruptions are a means of Man's disobedience to that natural order, and as such the temptations of the flesh to mimic and fake that natural order with homosexual love is just such an instance. You talk about a duck being called a cow and saying it still quacks, but this is what you are doing by subs***uting the homosexual couple into a biological impossible role situation. Since a family unit is mother, father, and child, it does no good to argue for two mother or two fathers and child. That would displace the child's natural evironment. As far as your own deficiency is concerned, it is much the same as mine in various places called sinfulness. I need forgiveness from God, your own life is quite different. I think it hard enough to tell a blind man what to see, this seems a spiritual matter which the Holy Spirit should teach. I am not the Holy Spirit, but I will continue to pray for you.
Since you failed to address it I will bring it up again:
So it is a matter of monetary support? A gay couple could easily provide the financial support necessary to raise a child. In fact, if they couldn't then they wouldn't be allowed to adopt a child. Yet heterosexual couples are allowed to pump out kid after kid that they can not afford and no one stops them.
First you said I was "lacking a deficiency" now you say I have a deficiency. Which is it? Do you even think before you type?As far as your own deficiency is concerned, it is much the same as mine in various places called sinfulness.
Everyone is deficient and "fall's short the mark" due to sin, you just don't recognize it completely. And being a role model is not just a monetary support, I only mentioned the monetary support as a secular response to parents that split up due to its preferred status of the child in the family unit. The family unit that has parents divorce becomes an unstable family unit due to the sinfulness of the parents to not fulfill their marriage vows. What God has joined together in holy matrimony, let no man break assunder.
Look, first you said I was "lacking a deficiency" now you are trying to recover from using a nonsensical string of words and it is not working.
So now it is about role models? How is that gay parents can't be role models?
If you cannot even figure out the role parent's play as a natural order in the family unit, your sinfulness has blinded you to a point that at this time is not beneficial in continuing a dialogue. At any rate, my time is short as is. I'll continue to pray for you. May God bless you with his Spirit.
Now you are just dodging questions. How is that gays can not be role models?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote