How to Destroy a Culture in 5 Easy Steps
Jun 29, 2011
Joe Carter
In his book The Future of Marriage, David Blankenhorn, a liberal, gay-rights-supporting Democrat and self-professed “marriage nut,” offers this sociological principle: “People who professionally dislike marriage almost always favor gay marriage.” As a corollary, Blankenhorn adds: “Ideas that have long been used to attack marriage are now commonly used to support same-sex marriage.” 
Blankenhorn provides almost irrefutable proof that this is the expressed agenda of many—if not most—professional advocates of same-sex marriage. Other scholars have noticed the same and have attempted to present the public with the facts about the less-than-hidden agenda to use homosexual rights to deinstitutionalize marriage and to separate sexual exclusivity from the concept of “monogamy.”
Since the agenda is an open secret, how has this anti-marriage program been able to advance to the level of public policy? And how did it happen so quickly?
To understand this seismic cultural shift we should turn to an obscure, decade-old political theory.
The Overton Window, developed in the mid-1990s by the late Joseph P. Overton, describes a "window" in the range of public reactions to ideas in public discourse. Overton believed that the spectrum included all possible options in a window of opportunity:
Imagine, if you will, a yardstick standing on end. On either end are the extreme policy actions for any political issue. Between the ends lie all gradations of policy from one extreme to the other. The yardstick represents the full political spectrum for a particular issue. The essence of the Overton window is that only a portion of this policy spectrum is within the realm of the politically possible at any time. Regardless of how vigorously a think tank or other group may campaign, only policy initiatives within this window of the politically possible will meet with success.
All issues fall somewhere along this policy continuum, which can be roughly outlined as: Unthinkable, Radical, Acceptable, Sensible, Popular, Policy. When the window moves or expands, ideas can accordingly become more or less politically acceptable.
Overton’s model was developed to explain adjustments in the political climate. But I believe it can also illuminate how profound and deleterious changes are advanced in our culture. If the goal were to undermine cultural institutions, the process for getting from Unthinkable to Policy would follow these five easy steps:
Step #1: From Unthinkable to Radical — The first step is the easiest—provided the issue can become a fetish or the topic of an academic symposium. Since both the professoriate and the perverts have a fascination with the faux-transgressive (the truly transgressive [i.e., Christianity] tends to terrify them) all you need to do is get the attention of one of these groups. It doesn't matter which you start with since the politics of the bedroom and the classroom inevitably overlap.
Step #2: From Radical to Acceptable — This shift requires the creation and employment of euphemism. Want to kill a child exiting the womb? Call it "dilation and extraction” and infanticide becomes a medical procedure. Want to include sodomitic unions under the banner of “marriage?” Redefine the term “marriage” to mean the state-endorsed copulation of any two(?) people who want to share a bed and a tax form. Be sure to say it is about “love”—in our culture, eros excuses everything.
There will naturally be a few holdouts, of course, but those who reject the shift from Radical to Acceptable can be shamed into approving. All that is required is to deploy a stingingly suitable insult. The word “bigot”, for instance, is more effective than a billy club at beating the young into submission. There are few core beliefs they won’t change to avoid being called a bigot. The disapproval of their Creator is unfortunate; enduring the disfavor of their peers is unimaginable.
Step #3: From Acceptable to Sensible — There is nothing more sensible than to submit to one’s god. And while Americans may profess to worship Allah, Jehovah, or Jesus, we mostly worship an American Idol—ourselves. That is why social libertarianism has become our country’s fastest-growing cult. It has tapped into this self-idolatry by preaching a gospel of the Individual. It’s a pragmatic and accepting message. You were, as its chief evangelist Lady Gaga says, “born this way”: “It doesn't matter if you love him, or capital H-I-M / Just put your paws up /'Cause you were born this way, baby.”
Step #4: From Sensible to Popular — This step merely requires personalizing the issue. Do you know someone who is LGBT? Divorced? Had an abortion? Sure you do, they are in your family, in your school, at your church.
Do you hate them? If not, then how can you still disapprove of their actions? (Note: Be sure to talk fast so that no one follows the logic.) As it says in the Good Book (or maybe in a Lady Gaga song), judge not lest God judge you for judging. You want people to like you, don’t you? Then express popular approval for what your cultural betters (e.g., people on reality TV) believe should be popularly approved. Then you’ll be popular and it won't be necessary to call you a bigot.
Step #5: From Popular to Policy — Commission a public opinion poll. Show it to a politician. They’ll do the rest.
Of course not everyone in society will agree with every step along the way, but that won’t stop an issue from sliding into policy. All it requires is for a majority of the people who find the issue unacceptable to do nothing at all.
Almost every culturally corrosive policy—from abortion to no-fault divorce to gay marriage—has come about in America this way: Christians who find such issues “unacceptable” tacitly accept this social-libertarian shift by their refusal to take action.
Taking action is perhaps the wrong word, though, since what is most often necessary is deliberate inaction. For example, if every Christian in America who claimed to be pro-life would simply refuse to vote for any candidate—regardless of party—who supports abortion, the abortion laws would change within two election cycles. Similarly, if every Christian in America who claimed to be pro-marriage had refused to support no-fault divorce, there would be less poverty and fewer broken families in our country today. And if every Christian in New York had made it clear that he would hold his representatives accountable for attempting to redefine marriage, then the recent expansion of homosexual-rights legislation would have never come to a vote.
Sadly, such inaction has never happened and is unlikely to occur in the near future. America has produced an overwhelming number of Christians who are adept at explaining why they can support issues that are antithetical to Christianity and depressingly few who can give reasons why we should adhere to the teachings of scripture and the wisdom of the church.
History has shown that dedicated Christians can close the Overton window and reverse the shift from “policy” to “unthinkable.” But it requires a people who have courage and conviction and a willingness to be despised for the truth. Do current generations have such virtues? Probably not. But I’m holding out hope that our grandkids will be born that way.
Joe Carter is Web Editor of First Things and the co-author of How to Argue Like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History's Greatest Communicator. His previous articles for “On the Square” can be found here.
RESOURCES
David Blankenhorn, The Future of Marriage
An Introduction to the Overton Window of Political Possibilities
Joe Carter, Marriage Minus Monogamy
Comments:
6.29.2011 | 1:38am
edmond says:
Christianity after the resurrection of Jesus Christ was not mainstream culture at all. The apostles of Christ had to go against the grain with the fire of the Holy Spirit in order for the conversions to reach critical mass long after. Yet Christian culture has survived more than two thousand years, with adjustments. Courage and conviction of the succeeding generations is not enough because you can be convicted of the wrong values. What is more important is the "passing of the torch" by the older generations. Values and church teaching that is not watered down, have to be passed on creatively and judiciously to the next generation.
6.29.2011 | 5:05am
JDC says:
Probably going to take a bit more heat for this than Ms. Scalia took for hers yesterday, but you have said what ought to be said. Thanks.
6.29.2011 | 5:49am
Seen It Before says:
A useful corollary to this is to observe the process by which the Left takes over institutions, e.g., churches. They first petition incessantly for "dialogue" in the name of "tolerance." As soon as dogmatic teaching is up for discussion, it's all over. Some nitwits on the Right, trying to be fair-minded and trusting in reason and an atmosphere of respect, assume that the Left really just wants to talk about it. Wrong. "Dialogue" is the concept they use to gain a foothold. Once they have stormed that Normandy, they will not stop until they have driven the Right (by which I mean defenders of orthodoxy within that institution) back to a point of weakness ... at which point they declare that in the name of "justice," the issue is closed, and we cannot tolerate the kind of bigotry espoused by the people on the Right -- who, a generation ago, opened themselves up to this kind of attack by assuming that when the Left begged for tolerance and dialogue, they really meant it.
Within 10 years, we will see in many quarters of the US traditional Christians spoken of openly in the same tones of contempt as racial bigots are now -- and not only by gay activists, but by the kind of right-minded people who wouldn't dream of it today.
Within 10 years, we will see in many quarters of the US traditional Christians spoken of openly in the same tones of contempt as racial bigots are now -- and not only by gay activists, but by the kind of right-minded people who wouldn't dream of it today.
6.29.2011 | 5:56am
The Moz says:
Love it! But I think I am already starting to sense that some young people are getting alittle tired of the Gaga ethos, and I live in the New York of Canada. Maybe what our culture needs (don't crucify me for saying this) but a really bad recession to knock people back on their butts and make them realize what's really important. Why does a relatively poor country like Hungary have a pro-life constitution but the riches place on earth does not?
6.29.2011 | 6:08am
Matt Parker says:
Well said, it's not a bad premise to live by where you treat your fellow man as you want to be treated, although the adjustment to cultural change throughout generations is also important!
6.29.2011 | 6:16am
Peter says:
Doesn't the process described above occur in the same way for issues many readers of FT support? Think of slavery, child labor laws, the education of women, and all sorts of political and social equality. It also works for issues like prohibition that most now regret. It is working currently with marijuana "normalization". How does a society decide its direction except by this sort of process? The outcomes are neither predetermined (at least in our field of vision) nor irrevocable. Thank goodness that at least we primarily use peaceful means of persuasion of large portions of society to drift and bump along from one policy to another.
6.29.2011 | 7:34am
outis says:
What a facile little piece of argumentation, regardless of however much I ultimately agree.
6.29.2011 | 8:41am
Michael PS says:
Alexander Pope put it succinctly:
“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As, to be hated, needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”
Essay on Man, Epistle II - Alexander Pope
“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As, to be hated, needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”
Essay on Man, Epistle II - Alexander Pope
6.29.2011 | 8:42am
Wi says:
Romans chapter 1 provides the landmark description of the moral and spiritual side of such cultural shifts as gay "marriage", and Overton and others have supplied the results in policy and political terms. Since values and virtues are passed in culture, we need to create and sustain subcultures honoring to God and his word to pass on what Christ have given us. Family, church and para-church organizations are the primary means that I see. Forums like this website are helpful too.
We must remain open to the surrounding culture to share the gospel and show love with which Christ has loved us. But we also must speak the truth in love, and leave the rest with God. Salt and light are often unwelcome; so be it.
We must remain open to the surrounding culture to share the gospel and show love with which Christ has loved us. But we also must speak the truth in love, and leave the rest with God. Salt and light are often unwelcome; so be it.
6.29.2011 | 8:43am
Matthew G says:
Step 2 is important; in addition to euphemism and insults for those who disagree, there are some other tactics. First of all, the entertainment industry (and I include much of TV "news" here) is extremely influential in our lives. When you think about it, it is remarkable that we have in our homes little windows (Televisions, computers, etc,) through which we and our children can view and hear all sorts of opinions, images, attitudes, worldviews, arguments, etc. that would otherwise never be allowed in our homes, much less allowed to be beaten into our skulls over and over again (the beating is done subtly). Compare the way a traditional father is portrayed in the entertainment industry with the way a homosexual is portrayed. Step 2 (and probably others) depends on the various media for its success.
One, which was sort of mentioned, is to
One, which was sort of mentioned, is to
6.29.2011 | 9:00am
Charlie Collier says:
"History has shown that dedicated Christians can close the Overton window and reverse the shift from 'policy' to 'unthinkable.'"
Closing the Overton window is not possible, for the "window" just describes a spectrum of political possibility on any particular issue. There's still an "Overton window" on public executions, but "lynching African Americans" has now become "unthinkable."
"But it requires a people who have courage and conviction and a willingness to be despised for the truth. Do current generations have such virtues? Probably not. But I’m holding out hope that our grandkids will be born that way."
I too lament the lack of unity of Christians in America when it comes to our social/political witness. There are few things more frustrating than the breakdown of American Christianity along racial and partisan lines (white churches, black churches; blue churches, red churches). But I wish Joe would think more about Christianity and its social witness. It's not our job as Christians to make American Democracy work, any more than it was the job of the first disciples to make the Roman Empire work (surely, a biblicist like Joe doesn't think "history" has moved us past the social situation of the Christians who produced the New Testament). I'm convinced that enlisting in the culture wars in America—by both liberal Christians and conservative Christians—contributes mightily to the divisions within the Body of Christ that Joe rightly laments.
Closing the Overton window is not possible, for the "window" just describes a spectrum of political possibility on any particular issue. There's still an "Overton window" on public executions, but "lynching African Americans" has now become "unthinkable."
"But it requires a people who have courage and conviction and a willingness to be despised for the truth. Do current generations have such virtues? Probably not. But I’m holding out hope that our grandkids will be born that way."
I too lament the lack of unity of Christians in America when it comes to our social/political witness. There are few things more frustrating than the breakdown of American Christianity along racial and partisan lines (white churches, black churches; blue churches, red churches). But I wish Joe would think more about Christianity and its social witness. It's not our job as Christians to make American Democracy work, any more than it was the job of the first disciples to make the Roman Empire work (surely, a biblicist like Joe doesn't think "history" has moved us past the social situation of the Christians who produced the New Testament). I'm convinced that enlisting in the culture wars in America—by both liberal Christians and conservative Christians—contributes mightily to the divisions within the Body of Christ that Joe rightly laments.
6.29.2011 | 9:11am
Albert says:
It's unclear to me why this piece is at all controversial with the possible exception of the last point regarding the prospect of current generations actually changing the way they live so as to effect change. Variations on the theme of the cultural slide from implausibility to political acceptance have been offered for a while. One can Google "unthinkable became inevitable" for other variations.
The problem of course is that it is still an intellectual apprehension that has not altered our living practice; indeed our daily practices, sustained through cultural institutions, shape us in such a way as to render impotent our excellent, faithful ideas. But it's the witness of our practices together, and only secondarily rational explanation, that will actually render plausible truths increasingly implausible in this society.
The problem of course is that it is still an intellectual apprehension that has not altered our living practice; indeed our daily practices, sustained through cultural institutions, shape us in such a way as to render impotent our excellent, faithful ideas. But it's the witness of our practices together, and only secondarily rational explanation, that will actually render plausible truths increasingly implausible in this society.
6.29.2011 | 9:13am
PaulR says:
During the argument for "gay marriage" in NY, I found myself swayed for a moment by the soft cooing of its well-dressed politicians and public supporters in the media, declaring all they wanted was "equality" and "tolerance." It was very disarming, and when simplified to such a level, I found myself questioning my opposition to "gay marriage."
Then, a short 24 hours after Cuomo signed the bill, I saw the videos, as did everyone else, of gay men wearing only g-strings and cowboy boots, simulating sexual contact, and of gay women stripped to their underwear, all parading publicly through the streets of NY "celebrating."
I felt foolish, and angry - It took only a short 24 hours for their intellectual promises of virtue to show themselves as the ugly reality of disgusting public license. All those interviewed on the streets still used the same cliches about "tolerance" and "equality," but coming from them it sounded like mocking - as though I had bought a lemon of a used car, and now the salesmen were laughing about the words they had used to sell it to me.
Then, a short 24 hours after Cuomo signed the bill, I saw the videos, as did everyone else, of gay men wearing only g-strings and cowboy boots, simulating sexual contact, and of gay women stripped to their underwear, all parading publicly through the streets of NY "celebrating."
I felt foolish, and angry - It took only a short 24 hours for their intellectual promises of virtue to show themselves as the ugly reality of disgusting public license. All those interviewed on the streets still used the same cliches about "tolerance" and "equality," but coming from them it sounded like mocking - as though I had bought a lemon of a used car, and now the salesmen were laughing about the words they had used to sell it to me.
6.29.2011 | 9:37am
irksome1 says:
It's interesting that what goes unsaid in this piece is that these five easy steps have as much utility for the Right as they do for the Left when the issue is either torture or lying. One need not look far, even through the articles here at Fist Things, to see that this is the case.
6.29.2011 | 10:35am
Robert Saler says:
I would be curious to hear someone respond to Peter's point above. It encapsulates precisely my own objections to this article.
6.29.2011 | 10:54am
Park Slope Pubby says:
You want to change this? Do as I did yesterday. Go to the National Organization for Marriage website (www.nationformarriage.org) and donate. Or go their PAC that is dedicated to defeating the NY legislators that changed their vote, after promising their constituents in the last election that they would vote against gay marriage. www.nompacny.org. Donate there.
We cannot just roll over and play dead. I live and work in a situation where if I said what I really think, I would be ostracized. So I keep my mouth shut, and give as much money as I can. I have no question whatsoever that gay marriage is wrong.
We cannot just roll over and play dead. I live and work in a situation where if I said what I really think, I would be ostracized. So I keep my mouth shut, and give as much money as I can. I have no question whatsoever that gay marriage is wrong.
6.29.2011 | 11:07am
Ruth Henriquez says:
This essay exemplifies the divide between thinking with the brain and thinking with the heart. The argument is well laid out and clever, yet it manages to condemn a social movement without taking on the truly difficult question of the place of homosexuals in our society, and how we should relate to them as human beings with feelings and certain rights.
I am the mother of a very much loved gay son. When I read what has been written here, I ask myself, have any of you experienced what it is like to love someone who is gay? Have you ever had someone dear to you attacked and physically beaten by a group of thugs because of his sexual orientation? Do you know what it's like to fear for your child's life?
Can you not empathize with our sigh of relief that finally the people who would tolerate harm to those we love are starting to make up a smaller percentage of the population, and those who wish no ill to those we love are growing in number? And does it not occur to you that as long as the government sanctifies discrimination against those we love, that gives tacit support to those who would do harm to gay people, whether by physical assault or by denying them a job or place to live?
People in my situation must choose to make relationship decisions based either on dogma or on love, which the essay's author cynically disparages in his line, "Be sure to say it is about “love”—in our culture, eros excuses everything." My answer to that is that the author may be capable of love, but I suspect it is a love that flows within channels narrowly defined by the dogmas to which he subscribes. In other words, his cup runneth not over.
I am the mother of a very much loved gay son. When I read what has been written here, I ask myself, have any of you experienced what it is like to love someone who is gay? Have you ever had someone dear to you attacked and physically beaten by a group of thugs because of his sexual orientation? Do you know what it's like to fear for your child's life?
Can you not empathize with our sigh of relief that finally the people who would tolerate harm to those we love are starting to make up a smaller percentage of the population, and those who wish no ill to those we love are growing in number? And does it not occur to you that as long as the government sanctifies discrimination against those we love, that gives tacit support to those who would do harm to gay people, whether by physical assault or by denying them a job or place to live?
People in my situation must choose to make relationship decisions based either on dogma or on love, which the essay's author cynically disparages in his line, "Be sure to say it is about “love”—in our culture, eros excuses everything." My answer to that is that the author may be capable of love, but I suspect it is a love that flows within channels narrowly defined by the dogmas to which he subscribes. In other words, his cup runneth not over.
6.29.2011 | 11:20am
Wilson Stook says:
In response to Peter:
I think this article is not criticizing the process itself; but rather is trying to make us conscious of its existence. If we understand this process and are aware of it, then we may use that to our advantage in order o achieve true change.
I think this article is not criticizing the process itself; but rather is trying to make us conscious of its existence. If we understand this process and are aware of it, then we may use that to our advantage in order o achieve true change.
6.29.2011 | 11:25am
Bob Divine says:
Ruth Henriquez says:
This essay exemplifies the divide between thinking with the brain and thinking with the heart. The argument is well laid out and clever, yet it manages to condemn a social movement without taking on the truly difficult question of the place of homosexuals in our society, and how we should relate to them as human beings with feelings and certain rights.
--------------
Your son always had rights. There is no such thing as "gay" rights. The unborn have rights as well but society seems keen to continue with the tragedy of abortion. Others will also be discriminated against, blacks, hispanics, the mentally challenged (autism, etc.), if you are physically deformed, you will be discrimated against. It is not just, it is deplorable, but you don't need additional, imagined, fairy-tale rights. Our rights have always existed under God and the U.S. Constitution, regardless of our phlight. To say that your son's immorality DESERVES additional rights so he won't be discriminated is either naive or evil or both. I'm just waiting for the next fool to tell me that an adulterer needs rights to care for his family and his mistresses' extended family cause gosh darn it, he does not deserve to be discriminated against.
This essay exemplifies the divide between thinking with the brain and thinking with the heart. The argument is well laid out and clever, yet it manages to condemn a social movement without taking on the truly difficult question of the place of homosexuals in our society, and how we should relate to them as human beings with feelings and certain rights.
--------------
Your son always had rights. There is no such thing as "gay" rights. The unborn have rights as well but society seems keen to continue with the tragedy of abortion. Others will also be discriminated against, blacks, hispanics, the mentally challenged (autism, etc.), if you are physically deformed, you will be discrimated against. It is not just, it is deplorable, but you don't need additional, imagined, fairy-tale rights. Our rights have always existed under God and the U.S. Constitution, regardless of our phlight. To say that your son's immorality DESERVES additional rights so he won't be discriminated is either naive or evil or both. I'm just waiting for the next fool to tell me that an adulterer needs rights to care for his family and his mistresses' extended family cause gosh darn it, he does not deserve to be discriminated against.
6.29.2011 | 11:43am
@ Ruth Henriquez - "Do you know what it's like to fear for your child's life?"
It certainly is a heart-wrenching thing to have a son or daughter in this situation. However, it is a destructive lifestyle. One of my extended family members a little older than I lived the homosexual life at full speed in San Francisco in the 1980s. He died of AIDS in the early 1990s, and that lifestyle, the one you seem to be rooting for, killed him. He came back to God in the last year of his life, and many broken relationships were mended. But he died nonetheless.
Truth and love. Not just truth. And not just love. Please renew your commitment to the truth; love will then find a way to do its work within that "dogma." Otherwise, you will likely, I think, be contributing to someone's destruction, maybe even that of your son or yourself.
P.S. I wish the best for your son and you.
It certainly is a heart-wrenching thing to have a son or daughter in this situation. However, it is a destructive lifestyle. One of my extended family members a little older than I lived the homosexual life at full speed in San Francisco in the 1980s. He died of AIDS in the early 1990s, and that lifestyle, the one you seem to be rooting for, killed him. He came back to God in the last year of his life, and many broken relationships were mended. But he died nonetheless.
Truth and love. Not just truth. And not just love. Please renew your commitment to the truth; love will then find a way to do its work within that "dogma." Otherwise, you will likely, I think, be contributing to someone's destruction, maybe even that of your son or yourself.
P.S. I wish the best for your son and you.
6.29.2011 | 12:14pm
Kaisar says:
I'm not one to dismiss Christianity from resurgence. I'm sure that God will indeed raise enough saints in our society to bring back the lost sheep into the fold. It begins with a total rejection of the world and full embrace of Christ. He has to be the centre of our lives once more. After that, I think the work belongs to Him. He will lobby, convince and turn Christian ideals into policy.
http://viewcatholic.blogspot.com/2011/06/utter-utter-failure-of-postmodernism.html
http://viewcatholic.blogspot.com/2011/06/utter-utter-failure-of-postmodernism.html
6.29.2011 | 12:14pm
@ Ruth Henriquez - "In other words, his cup runneth not over."
In Ps 23, the phrase "My cup runneth over" is preceded by the phrase, "He restores my soul; he leads me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake," and followed by the phrase, "Surely goodness...will follow me all the days of my life." One does not have to read far in scripture to find out about the righteousness and goodness of a holy God.
Taking verses out of context for rhetorical purposes can, and here does, reinforce a wrong as easily as a right.
In Ps 23, the phrase "My cup runneth over" is preceded by the phrase, "He restores my soul; he leads me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake," and followed by the phrase, "Surely goodness...will follow me all the days of my life." One does not have to read far in scripture to find out about the righteousness and goodness of a holy God.
Taking verses out of context for rhetorical purposes can, and here does, reinforce a wrong as easily as a right.
6.29.2011 | 12:44pm
David Nickol says:
With God all things r possible:
You say: "However, it is a destructive lifestyle. One of my extended family members a little older than I lived the homosexual life at full speed in San Francisco in the 1980s."
What is under discussion here is same-sex marriage. There is no such thing as "the homosexual life." I won't deny that a lot of gay men are promiscuous, use drugs, etc., but there is no reason to call that "the homosexual life." Fifty percent of married couples get divorced. Should we call marriage followed by divorce "the heterosexual lifestyle"? Because 71 percent of African-American women have children out of wedlock, should we call unmarried motherhood "the African-American lifestyle"?
You say: "However, it is a destructive lifestyle. One of my extended family members a little older than I lived the homosexual life at full speed in San Francisco in the 1980s."
What is under discussion here is same-sex marriage. There is no such thing as "the homosexual life." I won't deny that a lot of gay men are promiscuous, use drugs, etc., but there is no reason to call that "the homosexual life." Fifty percent of married couples get divorced. Should we call marriage followed by divorce "the heterosexual lifestyle"? Because 71 percent of African-American women have children out of wedlock, should we call unmarried motherhood "the African-American lifestyle"?
6.29.2011 | 12:52pm
David Nickol says:
Ruth Henriquez,
Bless you!
You say, "I am the mother of a very much loved gay son. When I read what has been written here, I ask myself, have any of you experienced what it is like to love someone who is gay?"
The answer is, no they haven't. Our next-door neighbor where I grew up had ten children. One of them, the second-oldest son, turned out to be gay. When his father (a Catholic) found out, he cut off all contact with the young man. The mother occasionally, and secretly, sent her son money, and a sister secretly kept in contact with him as well. I think a number of people here would do the same as the father. It is a shame.
Bless you!
You say, "I am the mother of a very much loved gay son. When I read what has been written here, I ask myself, have any of you experienced what it is like to love someone who is gay?"
The answer is, no they haven't. Our next-door neighbor where I grew up had ten children. One of them, the second-oldest son, turned out to be gay. When his father (a Catholic) found out, he cut off all contact with the young man. The mother occasionally, and secretly, sent her son money, and a sister secretly kept in contact with him as well. I think a number of people here would do the same as the father. It is a shame.
6.29.2011 | 1:07pm
Roger says:
Some friends of mine from an East Asian country recently asked me, "What gives with this push in America for same-sex marriage?" They were not able to make any sense of it. They are well-educated, open-minded, and are acquainted with some homosexuals, but cannot for the life of them understand why they want to marry. How to explain it? I'm convinced that same-sex marriage could only make sense in a society where selfish individualism has grown to the point that marriage no longer has any social meaning. Traditional marriage obviously has that meaning, because that is where the next generation comes from. Hence, it has deserved the status and perks that come with marriage, because it is not just about bliss of two people, but contributes to society in a way that a hermetic, same-sex union cannot. Same-sex unions are of no inherent interest to society, and do not merit the costs of such status. I have been passionately challenged, "But if they love each other?" To which I just answer "So what?" Our various affective states are not the concern of society or of government. I have a close friend I've known for years. Should we register our "friendship" at city hall? It isn't that I have no sympathy for the struggles gay people--including Ruth Henirquez's son--may face, but redefining marriage to include their unions will ultimately be of no help to them (they can already make any needed legal arrangements for inheritance, hospital visit, or whatever), and will only further erode whatever social meaning the institution of marriage has left.
6.29.2011 | 1:27pm
Douglas Johnson says:
I read a comment on First Things once that read "As DB Hart once told me 'we've replaced the Divine Right of Kings with the Divine Right of the Individual, where there is left no intervening authority between the individual and the state.'"
I'm reminded of it again here. Can someone confirm if this is something David Bentley Hart actually said?
I'm reminded of it again here. Can someone confirm if this is something David Bentley Hart actually said?
6.29.2011 | 1:51pm
CKG says:
I do have family members who are homosexual, and I am, as far as I can tell, in good relationship with them. They know what I, as a (Lord, have mercy) serious Christian, think, and I know what they think of what I think. And yet, we manage to live at reasonable peace with one another.
As 'With God' above said, when it comes to 'speaking the Truth in Love', it is all too easy to err on one side at the expense of the other - to uphold Truth at the expense of Love, or, conversely, to uphold Love at the expense of Truth. I will try to avoid ad hominem critiques of previous commenters; it is difficult enough for me to navigate my own way through 'Hate the Sin but Love the Sinner'. But, both Truth and Love are necessary.
As 'With God' above said, when it comes to 'speaking the Truth in Love', it is all too easy to err on one side at the expense of the other - to uphold Truth at the expense of Love, or, conversely, to uphold Love at the expense of Truth. I will try to avoid ad hominem critiques of previous commenters; it is difficult enough for me to navigate my own way through 'Hate the Sin but Love the Sinner'. But, both Truth and Love are necessary.
6.29.2011 | 2:05pm
CKG says:
I can't help thinking that Marriage as a maeningful social institution was already effectively abolished years ago. Same-Sex 'Marriage' is only the next logical step in the process begun with the Sexual Revolution of the 60s (although honestly, the process was already well underway by then). David Nickol (12:44) does well to highlight divorce and unwed-motherhood (which is particularly widespread and acute in the African-American community, but by no means exclusive to them), as these have been doing the heavy lifting in what Maggie Gallagher has called The Abolition of Marriage for many years now.
I have often wondered why so many Christians fulminate against homosexuality, which (Kinsey aside) might touch 2-3% of the population, but have so little to say about divorce, which touches more than half. It is likely that any preacher railing against divorce would find himself opposing a significant proportion of his own congregation. And yet, in terms of deleterious social effects, divorce (especially in its current, 'no-fault' configuration) is hugely more damaging than homosexuality will ever be.
I have often wondered why so many Christians fulminate against homosexuality, which (Kinsey aside) might touch 2-3% of the population, but have so little to say about divorce, which touches more than half. It is likely that any preacher railing against divorce would find himself opposing a significant proportion of his own congregation. And yet, in terms of deleterious social effects, divorce (especially in its current, 'no-fault' configuration) is hugely more damaging than homosexuality will ever be.
6.29.2011 | 2:17pm
JeffT says:
This battle is just a small step in the war against our culture, marriage and family. In the end, this is not the end of that war. We will continue to see feckless politicians cave to the socialist agenda. Destroying the culture is their driving force. The moral fiber necesssary to have a republic is crumbling. With it, goes the republic. And it won't take long.
6.29.2011 | 2:22pm
Ruth Henriquez says:
In regards to this comment: "To say that your son's immorality DESERVES additional rights so he won't be discriminated is either naive or evil or both."
Sir, it is you who are naive. My son has never asked for additional rights. He asks for the rights enjoyed by other citizens. And that includes the right to not be assaulted, which is a right weakened by much anti-gay rhetoric from religious zealots, whose cries for punishment against gay people inspire attacks.
In regards to the comment that homosexuality is a destructive lifestyle, I can only say that it depends on the person living it. My son has been with the same partner for seven years now. He is self-employed, pays taxes, contributes to charities, and is in general an exemplary citizen. Your comment demonstrates that you've made an appraisal based on stereotyping and ignorance.
And as for "taking verses out of context for rhetorical purposes," I would ask in what context should that verse be used? The essay's author implicitly professes to witness for the Lord and the righteous life. He obviously feels blessed by having been led "in the paths of righteousness for His name's sake." But I would point out that, as the story of the Good Samaritan teaches, those who feel so cocksure of their own goodness and rightness--i.e., the Pharisees--can sometimes be less than pleasing to God.
Sir, it is you who are naive. My son has never asked for additional rights. He asks for the rights enjoyed by other citizens. And that includes the right to not be assaulted, which is a right weakened by much anti-gay rhetoric from religious zealots, whose cries for punishment against gay people inspire attacks.
In regards to the comment that homosexuality is a destructive lifestyle, I can only say that it depends on the person living it. My son has been with the same partner for seven years now. He is self-employed, pays taxes, contributes to charities, and is in general an exemplary citizen. Your comment demonstrates that you've made an appraisal based on stereotyping and ignorance.
And as for "taking verses out of context for rhetorical purposes," I would ask in what context should that verse be used? The essay's author implicitly professes to witness for the Lord and the righteous life. He obviously feels blessed by having been led "in the paths of righteousness for His name's sake." But I would point out that, as the story of the Good Samaritan teaches, those who feel so cocksure of their own goodness and rightness--i.e., the Pharisees--can sometimes be less than pleasing to God.
6.29.2011 | 2:29pm
Ayodele says:
Rose Henriquez accuses Joe Carter of the unthinkable "crime" of condemning a "social movement without taking on the truly difficult question of the place of homosexuals in our society, and how we should relate to them as human beings with feelings and certain rights". The answer is simple: societies have always related to everyone who wishes to participate in the social contract in the same way - by asking them to abide by the time-tested principles that make for peaceful coexistence and the perpetuation of the human race. So for instance if you are born a kleptomaniac, the social contract DEMANDS that you refrain from stealing, or if you tend to favor polygamous relationships, you are relegated to monogamy.
She may not realize this, but her specious argument automatically applies to every so-called "social movements" no matter how anti-social they may be. For instance it could be applied to grant pedophiles the right to openly practice their lifestyles, free from discrimination and condemnation. I use this example specifically because, believe it or not, that movement is also beginning to gain steam, and while within the continuum of policy change, it is still presently at the extreme of "Unthinkable", (at least in my opinion), the success of the gay rights/marriage movement can only have one effect on the status of this other unthinkable, i.e. a push (even if a gentle nudge) towards "Radical". From this point on, anything is possible, as the writer said. You can certainly be sure that the liberals will take it from there, and begin another "human rights" campaign.
Should society at large be forced to accept anything shoved down its throat, simply because of familial and other considerations, without recourse to the long-term damage to social morality and propriety? Is it possible to love a homosexual family member without becoming a gay rights advocate? Absolutely. Families have done this for centuries. Where you err is in not being able to separate your motherly affection from the long-term issues raised by your son's homosexuality. In other words, if your son was a pedophile rather than a homosexual, would you still continue your affirmation of his lifestyle? What if he was a mass murderer? Regardless of what your answer is,everyone belongs to a family that loves them, (even mass murderers). But loving someone is not the same as affirming that which is contrary to logic, common sense and communal values.
She may not realize this, but her specious argument automatically applies to every so-called "social movements" no matter how anti-social they may be. For instance it could be applied to grant pedophiles the right to openly practice their lifestyles, free from discrimination and condemnation. I use this example specifically because, believe it or not, that movement is also beginning to gain steam, and while within the continuum of policy change, it is still presently at the extreme of "Unthinkable", (at least in my opinion), the success of the gay rights/marriage movement can only have one effect on the status of this other unthinkable, i.e. a push (even if a gentle nudge) towards "Radical". From this point on, anything is possible, as the writer said. You can certainly be sure that the liberals will take it from there, and begin another "human rights" campaign.
Should society at large be forced to accept anything shoved down its throat, simply because of familial and other considerations, without recourse to the long-term damage to social morality and propriety? Is it possible to love a homosexual family member without becoming a gay rights advocate? Absolutely. Families have done this for centuries. Where you err is in not being able to separate your motherly affection from the long-term issues raised by your son's homosexuality. In other words, if your son was a pedophile rather than a homosexual, would you still continue your affirmation of his lifestyle? What if he was a mass murderer? Regardless of what your answer is,everyone belongs to a family that loves them, (even mass murderers). But loving someone is not the same as affirming that which is contrary to logic, common sense and communal values.
6.29.2011 | 3:00pm
Ruth Henriquez says:
David Nickol:
You wrote, "Our next-door neighbor where I grew up had ten children. One of them, the second-oldest son, turned out to be gay. When his father (a Catholic) found out, he cut off all contact with the young man. The mother occasionally, and secretly, sent her son money, and a sister secretly kept in contact with him as well. I think a number of people here would do the same as the father. It is a shame."
A shame, yes. And an example of fear, not love.
You wrote, "Our next-door neighbor where I grew up had ten children. One of them, the second-oldest son, turned out to be gay. When his father (a Catholic) found out, he cut off all contact with the young man. The mother occasionally, and secretly, sent her son money, and a sister secretly kept in contact with him as well. I think a number of people here would do the same as the father. It is a shame."
A shame, yes. And an example of fear, not love.
6.29.2011 | 3:10pm
nancy says:
At some point the shift happened where our government moved from a republic based on a Judeo-Christian foundation to just another government. So if 'gay marriage' becomes policy a line will be drawn in the sand. Will the Christian churches conform to that policy or will a 'gay marriage' become a 'government marriage': unblessed and unholy but great for tax purposes and inheritance.
CKG: Divorce is damaging, but again we have been trained from the cradle by government policy to give up and get out. And 'no-fault' is the yellow brick road that eases our conscience and puts it outside the responsibility of being Christian.
CKG: Divorce is damaging, but again we have been trained from the cradle by government policy to give up and get out. And 'no-fault' is the yellow brick road that eases our conscience and puts it outside the responsibility of being Christian.
6.29.2011 | 3:34pm
David Nickol says:
Ayodele says: "The answer is simple: societies have always related to everyone who wishes to participate in the social contract in the same way - by asking them to abide by the time-tested principles that make for peaceful coexistence and the perpetuation of the human race."
Sure. That's why "society" has had slavery, pogroms, the Holocaust, and Jim Crow laws. It's why the Irish immigrants were so beloved in America in the 1800s. It's why women doing comparable work make 80% of what men make and why there are only 15 women CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies. It's why Protestants and Catholics fought against each other in the Thirty Years' War and in Northern Ireland. Society is always benevolent to minorities.
Sure. That's why "society" has had slavery, pogroms, the Holocaust, and Jim Crow laws. It's why the Irish immigrants were so beloved in America in the 1800s. It's why women doing comparable work make 80% of what men make and why there are only 15 women CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies. It's why Protestants and Catholics fought against each other in the Thirty Years' War and in Northern Ireland. Society is always benevolent to minorities.
6.29.2011 | 4:30pm
Ryan says:
I cannot help but wonder what Michel Foucault would think about the domestication of homosexuality. For him, homosexuality functioned as a way of direct protest to the pervasive Western narratives of moral power. I have a suspicion that he would lament recent trends thinking that the mainstream political institutions have now co-opted counter-cultural homosexuality as yet another power play (i.e., the recruitment of an additional voting constituency).
I think Bernard Lonergan's account of general bias is instructive for us as we think through these issues. When enough people refuse to ask relevant questions (and accost those who dare to ask), certain erroneous judgments become instantiated so thoroughly in a society that no one questions the judgments. These recent political and cultural shifts can be seen as a genetic development of the longer cycle of decline that, at least according to Lonergan, has been operative in Western culture for over 700 years.
Hopefully, First Things and those who interact on these forums are participating in what Lonergan calls cosmopolis (the solution to general bias) rather than continuing the patterns of bias that comprise our contemporary milieu.
I think Bernard Lonergan's account of general bias is instructive for us as we think through these issues. When enough people refuse to ask relevant questions (and accost those who dare to ask), certain erroneous judgments become instantiated so thoroughly in a society that no one questions the judgments. These recent political and cultural shifts can be seen as a genetic development of the longer cycle of decline that, at least according to Lonergan, has been operative in Western culture for over 700 years.
Hopefully, First Things and those who interact on these forums are participating in what Lonergan calls cosmopolis (the solution to general bias) rather than continuing the patterns of bias that comprise our contemporary milieu.
6.29.2011 | 6:55pm
Javier Gonzalez says:
Ruth Hernandez,
thank you for sharing your thought-provoking and heart-stirring words. people like you and your son are educating and enlightening society, including many Christians and Jews, and society is therefore progressing on this topic each day. the lies about bisexual and gay Americans are withering and dying as most people have come to know our gay and bisexual neighbors, family, friends, co-workers, and churchmembers. know that there are many CHristians and churches that welcome you and your son to our congregations and fellowships, including the Lutherans. I hope you find such a welcoming fellowship.
thank you for sharing your thought-provoking and heart-stirring words. people like you and your son are educating and enlightening society, including many Christians and Jews, and society is therefore progressing on this topic each day. the lies about bisexual and gay Americans are withering and dying as most people have come to know our gay and bisexual neighbors, family, friends, co-workers, and churchmembers. know that there are many CHristians and churches that welcome you and your son to our congregations and fellowships, including the Lutherans. I hope you find such a welcoming fellowship.
6.29.2011 | 9:05pm
JDC says:
It is not "erring on the side of love" if you love the sin.
The big unmentioned thing here is the nature of sexuality. What is it for? Union and procreation. Protestations notwithstanding, homosexual marriage is impossible because homosexual intercourse is impossible.
Sexual intercourse is essential to marriage.
Gay people cannot have sexual intercourse.
Gay people cannot be married.
The big unmentioned thing here is the nature of sexuality. What is it for? Union and procreation. Protestations notwithstanding, homosexual marriage is impossible because homosexual intercourse is impossible.
Sexual intercourse is essential to marriage.
Gay people cannot have sexual intercourse.
Gay people cannot be married.
6.29.2011 | 9:22pm
edmond says:
I agree with Ayodele. Love isn't always all cuddly and touchy-feely. There is tough love, the same kind of tough love behind Jesus' suffering and dying for our sins. Or to go further on the example of a mass murderer, would you personally shoot the vein of your son with heroin if he were an addict? God is merciful but He is also just, and this is what "enlightened" churches must believe. Christ dined with tax collectors and prostitutes to the chagrin of the pharisees, but He sought to lead them away from sinfulness. To the alduterous woman He said "Go and sin NO MORE." He did not condone her sinfulness at all. There is abig difference between condonation and mercy. An yes I grew up with gay people, lots of them. Today some of them have actually found God's purpose in life and they have abandoned their homosexuality "cold turkey". Anecdotally, there have been many moments when my gay friends have made the "slip" in reverting back into the man/woman they really were. Funny incident recalled, two gay friends, one homosexual and one lesbian were in our college cafeteria, and out of the storage closet a huge rat darted across their table, guess who got up the chair and started screaming? Yep, the lesbian. As I said, "slips".
6.29.2011 | 9:53pm
PaulR says:
I must have missed something over the last 20 years.
When exactly were homosexuals granted official "victimhood" status? Unlike the rest of us, it seems their sins no longer count.
When exactly were homosexuals granted official "victimhood" status? Unlike the rest of us, it seems their sins no longer count.
6.29.2011 | 10:09pm
Matt B says:
@David Nickol - surely you're not saying that women form a minority in this or any land (saving of course Red China, with India coming up from behind).
Your use of the "religious bigotry card" is pretty trite. And I guess what we're learning is that America is nobody's idea of a promised land, whitebread protestantism and cuomo catholicism notwithstanding.
I guess what I resent is being painted into a corner. I consider myself a reasonably just and charitable man. But in an instant, I've become a "homophobe."
It's like offering someone a hand up, and having them rip your arm off.
Your use of the "religious bigotry card" is pretty trite. And I guess what we're learning is that America is nobody's idea of a promised land, whitebread protestantism and cuomo catholicism notwithstanding.
I guess what I resent is being painted into a corner. I consider myself a reasonably just and charitable man. But in an instant, I've become a "homophobe."
It's like offering someone a hand up, and having them rip your arm off.
6.29.2011 | 11:03pm
Thomas R says:
I do think/hope some of the more hateful rhetoric subsides, but I don't know if there's any evidence that recognizing same-sex couples as married really does that. If a person wants to do violence or harassment to gays then I don't see why the state accepting their union changes that. Likewise if gays want to vandalize churches, as they did after Prop 8, I don't see how forbidding SSM changes that.
I also do think there are gays who want what straight people have and that's why they want marriage. They're not all perverts out to destroy your world with their transgressive agenda. They want to feel they can have the dream they see in TV shows and feel less marginalized. I don't know how common that is, but I think that desire does exist among many supporters.
As I have a genetic condition, osteogenesis imperfecta, I tend to feel that dreams like that are to some extent an illusion. There were parents who would go through all kinds of things to make their OI kids "normal." Surgeries, drug trials, etc. My parents did none of those. My back and feet are curved, my nose crooked, my teeth falling out, and mostly I'm happy. I did not pursue, nor was I made to pursue, some redesigning of myself to "be normal." So I'm less normal looking than I maybe could have been, but I'm haunted by far less bad memories.
Granted I see many gays who essentially say marriage is just about property, too many, or straights who support gay marriage as a way to repress religion. So that side of it is well worth exploring. Still I think that there's element that's not about demeaning marriage, but genuinely trying to mimic it as foolish as that might seem to us, is also worth remembering. And having some compassion to misguided people.
I also do think there are gays who want what straight people have and that's why they want marriage. They're not all perverts out to destroy your world with their transgressive agenda. They want to feel they can have the dream they see in TV shows and feel less marginalized. I don't know how common that is, but I think that desire does exist among many supporters.
As I have a genetic condition, osteogenesis imperfecta, I tend to feel that dreams like that are to some extent an illusion. There were parents who would go through all kinds of things to make their OI kids "normal." Surgeries, drug trials, etc. My parents did none of those. My back and feet are curved, my nose crooked, my teeth falling out, and mostly I'm happy. I did not pursue, nor was I made to pursue, some redesigning of myself to "be normal." So I'm less normal looking than I maybe could have been, but I'm haunted by far less bad memories.
Granted I see many gays who essentially say marriage is just about property, too many, or straights who support gay marriage as a way to repress religion. So that side of it is well worth exploring. Still I think that there's element that's not about demeaning marriage, but genuinely trying to mimic it as foolish as that might seem to us, is also worth remembering. And having some compassion to misguided people.
6.29.2011 | 11:35pm
Jack Quirk says:
If Catholics voted only for candidates who supported Catholic social teaching in total, then there would be very few candidates for whom they could cast a ballot. But, perhaps, that's exactly what we Catholics should do.
6.29.2011 | 11:53pm
Michael says:
There are Christian congregations that accept gays and lesbians as full members of the church. We encourage them, if called, to enter lifelong partnerships and marriages if legal, and, again if called, to raise children, all of these things with the support of the church.
We don't recognize homosexuality as a sin because it doesn't carry the marks of sin. Every other sin is known by the seeds of destruction it sows. Adultery destroys marriages; promiscuity destroys love; gambling, drunkenness, theft are all destructive.
The only argument for homsexuality as a sin is circular: that is, homsexuality is a sin because it is a sin. The idea that homosexuality causes promiscuity, disease, or mental illness is really an argument against promiscuity and mental illness, not homosexuality. There are too many homosexuals living upright lives in plain sight for most to believe the old stories that homosexuality is itself destructive and sinful.
The circularity of the argument means that, unlike all other moral sins, the public has to take the sinfulness of homsexuality on faith. Some Christians will want to take that sin on faith, but they might acknowledge that homosexuality is not what it has supposed to have been.
Meanwhile, we Christians who have opened our congregations to homosexuals will continue to preach the gospel, give witness to grace freely offered, and work toward sanctification. That other Christians believe in the same God and trust in the same assurances should only bring us into greater humility.
We don't recognize homosexuality as a sin because it doesn't carry the marks of sin. Every other sin is known by the seeds of destruction it sows. Adultery destroys marriages; promiscuity destroys love; gambling, drunkenness, theft are all destructive.
The only argument for homsexuality as a sin is circular: that is, homsexuality is a sin because it is a sin. The idea that homosexuality causes promiscuity, disease, or mental illness is really an argument against promiscuity and mental illness, not homosexuality. There are too many homosexuals living upright lives in plain sight for most to believe the old stories that homosexuality is itself destructive and sinful.
The circularity of the argument means that, unlike all other moral sins, the public has to take the sinfulness of homsexuality on faith. Some Christians will want to take that sin on faith, but they might acknowledge that homosexuality is not what it has supposed to have been.
Meanwhile, we Christians who have opened our congregations to homosexuals will continue to preach the gospel, give witness to grace freely offered, and work toward sanctification. That other Christians believe in the same God and trust in the same assurances should only bring us into greater humility.
6.30.2011 | 1:34am
Don Roberto Hill says:
"Gay marriage" undermines the meaning of real marriage because "gayness" is behavior. Bad behavior. Behavior that violates Western moral tradition. Behavior that leads to STDs. Behavior that deprives people of children and grandchildren. (WHo could honestly say he/she would be content if his/her only child "turned out" "gay"?)
"Gayness" is learned or taught behavior (all doodoo respect to Lady Gaga). Think about it: How do you know someone is "gay" or "bi" or "loves the color pink"? Answer: Because they say they are or do. Sounds like it's in the "software." Sounds like a religion--a fertility cult (sans the children). Wait, I'm having déjà vu: Didn't the Roman Empire fall after the majority of its people started devoting their lives to the gods of degenerate pleasure?
We are seeing the destruction of our culture. And its replacement can't be called culture. And without culture, we will not function as a nation. I have not lost hope (and despair is a sin), but it seems clear to me that our path is about to take us through some very, very rough terrain.
"Gayness" is learned or taught behavior (all doodoo respect to Lady Gaga). Think about it: How do you know someone is "gay" or "bi" or "loves the color pink"? Answer: Because they say they are or do. Sounds like it's in the "software." Sounds like a religion--a fertility cult (sans the children). Wait, I'm having déjà vu: Didn't the Roman Empire fall after the majority of its people started devoting their lives to the gods of degenerate pleasure?
We are seeing the destruction of our culture. And its replacement can't be called culture. And without culture, we will not function as a nation. I have not lost hope (and despair is a sin), but it seems clear to me that our path is about to take us through some very, very rough terrain.
6.30.2011 | 2:09am
Fr. Bryan says:
Ruth Hendriquez states: "I am the mother of a very much loved gay son. When I read what has been written here, I ask myself, have any of you experienced what it is like to love someone who is gay?"
David Nickol replies: "The answer is, no they haven't."
Mr. Nickol, I'm quite disappointed you have chosen to speak for everyone who happened to enjoy the article. The fact of the matter is somebody very close to me, who I love dearly, came out of the closet a couple of years ago and it has been heartbreaking watching him estrange himself from his family. This young man's father, a very loving and very caring man, has done all he can to reach out and remain in contact with his son, however the son continues to spread gossip among his straight friends (and likely his gay friends) that his father "rejects him." I've tried to make sense of it myself and can only conclude that this young man somehow needs the rejection of his family in order to gain sympathy from other men and to fit into his new community (and it is he who uses the term "gay community") and to justify a very rigorous "party lifestyle."
I've experienced ridicule and I've been and mocked once or twice (even before I started wearing a Roman Collar full time, believe it or not). Not long ago while I was in college some of my friends and I protested Roe v Wade on our campus. We were "rejected" by many of our fellow students. People who recognized me in class didn't look at me the same way any more. People I considered friendly acquaintances suddenly didn't want to have anything to do with me. Even close friends didn't make eye contact with me when they passed through our campus square that day. All of us who stood out there claiming "Women deserve better than abortion" had similar experiences, and it was through our "rejectedness" that the bonds of friendship within our little pro-life community strengthened. Now being pro-life is nothing like being gay, and that isn't why I brought it up. But it goes to show how "rejectedness" is something that can strengthen closeness within a minority, even if it has to be fabricated as I believe is the case of this young man. Perhaps if this young man was receiving the intimacy he is longing for with his boyfriend he wouldn't need to estrange himself from his family in order to attain greater unity with him and others.
And unfortunately it is painfully obvious to anyone who "loves" a gay man, as I love this young man, that the love and affection he is searching for is not going to be found in any sexual relationship with any man and it is frustrating to watch them try despite repeated evidence that they are simply going the wrong way.
(Note, while it is certainly possible for two men to love each other, all of the goods from this love are contained in the friendship between them, rather than the sexual relationship. Last I checked the government protected the right for men to be friends.)
Blessings to all.
David Nickol replies: "The answer is, no they haven't."
Mr. Nickol, I'm quite disappointed you have chosen to speak for everyone who happened to enjoy the article. The fact of the matter is somebody very close to me, who I love dearly, came out of the closet a couple of years ago and it has been heartbreaking watching him estrange himself from his family. This young man's father, a very loving and very caring man, has done all he can to reach out and remain in contact with his son, however the son continues to spread gossip among his straight friends (and likely his gay friends) that his father "rejects him." I've tried to make sense of it myself and can only conclude that this young man somehow needs the rejection of his family in order to gain sympathy from other men and to fit into his new community (and it is he who uses the term "gay community") and to justify a very rigorous "party lifestyle."
I've experienced ridicule and I've been and mocked once or twice (even before I started wearing a Roman Collar full time, believe it or not). Not long ago while I was in college some of my friends and I protested Roe v Wade on our campus. We were "rejected" by many of our fellow students. People who recognized me in class didn't look at me the same way any more. People I considered friendly acquaintances suddenly didn't want to have anything to do with me. Even close friends didn't make eye contact with me when they passed through our campus square that day. All of us who stood out there claiming "Women deserve better than abortion" had similar experiences, and it was through our "rejectedness" that the bonds of friendship within our little pro-life community strengthened. Now being pro-life is nothing like being gay, and that isn't why I brought it up. But it goes to show how "rejectedness" is something that can strengthen closeness within a minority, even if it has to be fabricated as I believe is the case of this young man. Perhaps if this young man was receiving the intimacy he is longing for with his boyfriend he wouldn't need to estrange himself from his family in order to attain greater unity with him and others.
And unfortunately it is painfully obvious to anyone who "loves" a gay man, as I love this young man, that the love and affection he is searching for is not going to be found in any sexual relationship with any man and it is frustrating to watch them try despite repeated evidence that they are simply going the wrong way.
(Note, while it is certainly possible for two men to love each other, all of the goods from this love are contained in the friendship between them, rather than the sexual relationship. Last I checked the government protected the right for men to be friends.)
Blessings to all.
6.30.2011 | 2:16am
Fr. Bryan says:
Michael writes: "We don't recognize homosexuality as a sin because it doesn't carry the marks of sin. Every other sin is known by the seeds of destruction it sows."
Perhaps you should visit one of the several AIDS hospices run by the Missionaries of Charity. As a seminarian I spent a summer helping the sisters in San Francisco and saw the destruction with my own eyes every time I changed one of their diapers.
Perhaps you should visit one of the several AIDS hospices run by the Missionaries of Charity. As a seminarian I spent a summer helping the sisters in San Francisco and saw the destruction with my own eyes every time I changed one of their diapers.
6.30.2011 | 4:57am
BJG says:
@Michael, I don't think sin has to always carry 'marks of sin', much of it is invisible. Anyway, if legalizing homosexual marriage gradually erodes the value of heterosexual marriage and children's environment, surely that is a 'mark of sin'. I won't even get into the question of what sex is for in the first place. Lord have mercy if I'm wrong or offensive, but I suspect the liberty your congregations take with the meaning of 'Church' is the immediate cause of the liberty you are taking in ignoring Christian traditional teaching on moral issues.
6.30.2011 | 5:08am
David Nickol says:
Matt B,
You say: "I guess what I resent is being painted into a corner. I consider myself a reasonably just and charitable man. But in an instant, I've become a 'homophobe.'"
I have no idea what your views are, so I could hardly call you a homophobe. I was responding to this statement: "The answer is simple: societies have always related to everyone who wishes to participate in the social contract in the same way - by asking them to abide by the time-tested principles that make for peaceful coexistence and the perpetuation of the human race."
Do you actually find that true? I keep hearing Christians expressing fears that they will be marginalized or even persecuted for not accepting same-sex marriage and homosexuality in general. Suppose my answer to them was: "The answer is simple: societies have always related to everyone who wishes to participate in the social contract in the same way - by asking them to abide by the time-tested principles that make for peaceful coexistence and the perpetuation of the human race."
It is just a false statement. It is preposterous. But because Ayodele is opposing same-sex marriage, most others opposing same-sex marriage let it pass, or even defend it. The answer is NOT simple, and any statement that begins, "Societies have ALWAYS related to EVERYONE . . . " is already an indefensible overgeneralization.
It is unfortunate, although I suppose it's pretty much the nature of a forum like this, that it's much more about "piling on" than it is about reaching a reasonable consensus. So because someone like Ayodele is strongly opposed to homosexuality and same-sex marriage, s/he can say just about anything, no matter how patently false, and odds are no one else opposed to homosexuality and same-sex marriage will object. What's important is what side you are on, not whether your arguments make any sense whatsoever.
You say: "I guess what I resent is being painted into a corner. I consider myself a reasonably just and charitable man. But in an instant, I've become a 'homophobe.'"
I have no idea what your views are, so I could hardly call you a homophobe. I was responding to this statement: "The answer is simple: societies have always related to everyone who wishes to participate in the social contract in the same way - by asking them to abide by the time-tested principles that make for peaceful coexistence and the perpetuation of the human race."
Do you actually find that true? I keep hearing Christians expressing fears that they will be marginalized or even persecuted for not accepting same-sex marriage and homosexuality in general. Suppose my answer to them was: "The answer is simple: societies have always related to everyone who wishes to participate in the social contract in the same way - by asking them to abide by the time-tested principles that make for peaceful coexistence and the perpetuation of the human race."
It is just a false statement. It is preposterous. But because Ayodele is opposing same-sex marriage, most others opposing same-sex marriage let it pass, or even defend it. The answer is NOT simple, and any statement that begins, "Societies have ALWAYS related to EVERYONE . . . " is already an indefensible overgeneralization.
It is unfortunate, although I suppose it's pretty much the nature of a forum like this, that it's much more about "piling on" than it is about reaching a reasonable consensus. So because someone like Ayodele is strongly opposed to homosexuality and same-sex marriage, s/he can say just about anything, no matter how patently false, and odds are no one else opposed to homosexuality and same-sex marriage will object. What's important is what side you are on, not whether your arguments make any sense whatsoever.
6.30.2011 | 5:35am
Matt B says:
MIchael, God bless you for your Christian witness. However, your argument is typically fallacious, as well. The point is not that "gay people" are bad. This has been the point C that the marriage argument has jumped to, overlooking pts A and B.
While you tout your church's openness and inclusiveness, I think it's true that the Christian churches in general have been more warmly supportive of "gay" people than any other organizations - in keeping with their character and charism. Contrast this with islam, where gays are killed. This is pt. A.
Your "live and let live" attitude, when you encourage gays "to enter lifelong partnerships and marriages if legal, and, again if called, to raise children, all of these things with the support of the church" is pt. B. You apparently think it is kindness to do this, and that to deny these "legal rights" is morally wrong. This is really specious reasoning. Lots of people are unable to engage in activities that others take for granted. While we accomodate and accept them, we don't change the moral law to ameliorate them. This would be unkind, unjust and morally wrong.
I would propose that your group's christianity does not take into account the Lords ability to miraculously heal, and is therefore a "reformed" christianity, not a "full gospel" christianity. Instead of holding out hope that the blind man will see, and asking him for faith-filled adherence to the law (as a Christian witness in and of itself), you're enshrining blindness as a good.
You also deny the witness value and spiritual power of suffering, offering the anodynes of societal acceptance and physicality instead. This is really a denial of the cross of Christ, and not serving people in the long run. On a human level it appears very "christian," but in effect it denies the power of Christ.
Do you believe in the resurrection? Will gay men and women be raised "gay?" If all of this is passing away, why not hold off for a little while, and receive glory in eternity? Just asking...
While you tout your church's openness and inclusiveness, I think it's true that the Christian churches in general have been more warmly supportive of "gay" people than any other organizations - in keeping with their character and charism. Contrast this with islam, where gays are killed. This is pt. A.
Your "live and let live" attitude, when you encourage gays "to enter lifelong partnerships and marriages if legal, and, again if called, to raise children, all of these things with the support of the church" is pt. B. You apparently think it is kindness to do this, and that to deny these "legal rights" is morally wrong. This is really specious reasoning. Lots of people are unable to engage in activities that others take for granted. While we accomodate and accept them, we don't change the moral law to ameliorate them. This would be unkind, unjust and morally wrong.
I would propose that your group's christianity does not take into account the Lords ability to miraculously heal, and is therefore a "reformed" christianity, not a "full gospel" christianity. Instead of holding out hope that the blind man will see, and asking him for faith-filled adherence to the law (as a Christian witness in and of itself), you're enshrining blindness as a good.
You also deny the witness value and spiritual power of suffering, offering the anodynes of societal acceptance and physicality instead. This is really a denial of the cross of Christ, and not serving people in the long run. On a human level it appears very "christian," but in effect it denies the power of Christ.
Do you believe in the resurrection? Will gay men and women be raised "gay?" If all of this is passing away, why not hold off for a little while, and receive glory in eternity? Just asking...
6.30.2011 | 5:37am
Ayodele says:
@Michael:
"We don't recognize homosexuality as a sin because it doesn't carry the marks of sin. Every other sin is known by the seeds of destruction it sows. Adultery destroys marriages; promiscuity destroys love; gambling, drunkenness, theft are all destructive"
1. You don't recognize homosexuality as a sin? Pedophile organizations hold that same position too, and have started their own campaign for acceptance. Individuals, organizations or religious bodies cannot decide for themselves what sin is. There is only ONE who has the authority to do this, that is GOD, and His definition of what constitutes sin in the Bible is what Christians have abided by for more than 2000 years.
2. Your argument as to the "marks of sin" can equally be applied to bestiality, since it obviously doesn't do any of these things either. Should it therefore no longer be sin?
3. Thirdly, people who affirm that homosexuality does not destroy marriages are living in a fantasy world of their own making. There are countless stories of men or women, who after being married for decades suddenly "discovered" their homosexual selves, abandoned their spouses and children, and started a homosexual relationship with a person of the same sex. This is not a destruction of marriage?
4. Lastly, the statement that "There are too many homosexuals living upright lives in plain sight for most to believe the old stories that homosexuality is itself destructive and sinful" is mere wishful thinking. Leaving the long-documented statistics about death and disease fostered by homosexuality aside, anybody familiar with the homosexual lifestyle understands that the process of living it necessarily involves terribly destructive patterns of behavior, such as in having multiple partners within a relatively short period of time. Even the very practice of homosexual intercourse is an act of violent destruction of human dignity and worth. The bottom line is that even a so-called "monogamous" homosexual relationship is not "upright" but upside down, empty, corrupt and meaningless.
"We don't recognize homosexuality as a sin because it doesn't carry the marks of sin. Every other sin is known by the seeds of destruction it sows. Adultery destroys marriages; promiscuity destroys love; gambling, drunkenness, theft are all destructive"
1. You don't recognize homosexuality as a sin? Pedophile organizations hold that same position too, and have started their own campaign for acceptance. Individuals, organizations or religious bodies cannot decide for themselves what sin is. There is only ONE who has the authority to do this, that is GOD, and His definition of what constitutes sin in the Bible is what Christians have abided by for more than 2000 years.
2. Your argument as to the "marks of sin" can equally be applied to bestiality, since it obviously doesn't do any of these things either. Should it therefore no longer be sin?
3. Thirdly, people who affirm that homosexuality does not destroy marriages are living in a fantasy world of their own making. There are countless stories of men or women, who after being married for decades suddenly "discovered" their homosexual selves, abandoned their spouses and children, and started a homosexual relationship with a person of the same sex. This is not a destruction of marriage?
4. Lastly, the statement that "There are too many homosexuals living upright lives in plain sight for most to believe the old stories that homosexuality is itself destructive and sinful" is mere wishful thinking. Leaving the long-documented statistics about death and disease fostered by homosexuality aside, anybody familiar with the homosexual lifestyle understands that the process of living it necessarily involves terribly destructive patterns of behavior, such as in having multiple partners within a relatively short period of time. Even the very practice of homosexual intercourse is an act of violent destruction of human dignity and worth. The bottom line is that even a so-called "monogamous" homosexual relationship is not "upright" but upside down, empty, corrupt and meaningless.
6.30.2011 | 5:43am
T. Hanski says:
Ruth Henriquez,
Do you recognize that the practice of homosexuality is perversion, abomination of nature and, therefore, sin? If not, then please ignore the rest of that comment. But if you do agree then I would like to ask you if you as a loving mother, whose son's welfare must mean infinitely more than being able to satisfy his deviancy, have honestly tried to influence your son to abstain from "sex" altogether and be just another celibate?
There are countless millions of celibates in the world and among them not so few who actually are attracted to their own gender, but on moral grounds decide not to follow the inclination.
I personally know one. An unusually intelligent, kind, deeply honest and courageous man. One of these remarkable persons who take morality seriously. A true man.
Wouldn't you have your son taking someone like this for his role model rather than greedily snatching the phony absolutions and cheap, irresponsible “solidarity” offered by the morbidly “tolerant” confederacy?
Nothing makes man happy more than being a man. Celibacy doesn't take a iota of one's manhood, but practicing homosexuality makes him a caricature of man. Do you dismiss totally the possibility that your son somehow, deep inside, knows it?
Do you recognize that the practice of homosexuality is perversion, abomination of nature and, therefore, sin? If not, then please ignore the rest of that comment. But if you do agree then I would like to ask you if you as a loving mother, whose son's welfare must mean infinitely more than being able to satisfy his deviancy, have honestly tried to influence your son to abstain from "sex" altogether and be just another celibate?
There are countless millions of celibates in the world and among them not so few who actually are attracted to their own gender, but on moral grounds decide not to follow the inclination.
I personally know one. An unusually intelligent, kind, deeply honest and courageous man. One of these remarkable persons who take morality seriously. A true man.
Wouldn't you have your son taking someone like this for his role model rather than greedily snatching the phony absolutions and cheap, irresponsible “solidarity” offered by the morbidly “tolerant” confederacy?
Nothing makes man happy more than being a man. Celibacy doesn't take a iota of one's manhood, but practicing homosexuality makes him a caricature of man. Do you dismiss totally the possibility that your son somehow, deep inside, knows it?
6.30.2011 | 6:14am
Gordon Hackman says:
I can understand Ruth's desire as a mother not to see her son be persecuted and harmed. Nevertheless, I feel her argument goes wrong from the beginning with it's distinction between thinking with the head and thinking with the heart. To me, this is a specious distinction, which could be used to justify almost anything, no matter how wrong or irrational it might be. She seems to be positing that things that morally make no sense should be accepted if objecting to them has the potential to create a situation that might bring harm to someone we love. In short, her argument boils down to saying, "My son, who identifies as a homosexual and whom I love, might be harmed if others claim that homosexual conduct is wrong, therefore no one should claim that homosexual conduct is wrong." But this is a non sequitur. How others might treat those who self-identify as homosexuals cannot determine the rightness or wrongness of homosexual conduct in itself.
If one is convinced on reasonable grounds that homosexual conduct is, in fact, morally wrong, then one cannot change one’s mind simply based on the potential affects of such a belief. Nor does another have the right to demand that you change your views when you are convinced otherwise, simply because they have a personal stake in the issue. This is nothing more than an attempt to hold another person’s conscience hostage and force them to change their convictions, even if they are otherwise convinced, which is also a form of violence. It is also asking that the clear teachings of scripture and the belief of the church universal for pretty much its entire history, be dismissed, again, because one has a personal stake in the issue. Yet Jesus, who in Mark 10 articulated and defended a traditional understanding of marriage, stated that “Anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” (Matt 10:37)
If one is convinced on reasonable grounds that homosexual conduct is, in fact, morally wrong, then one cannot change one’s mind simply based on the potential affects of such a belief. Nor does another have the right to demand that you change your views when you are convinced otherwise, simply because they have a personal stake in the issue. This is nothing more than an attempt to hold another person’s conscience hostage and force them to change their convictions, even if they are otherwise convinced, which is also a form of violence. It is also asking that the clear teachings of scripture and the belief of the church universal for pretty much its entire history, be dismissed, again, because one has a personal stake in the issue. Yet Jesus, who in Mark 10 articulated and defended a traditional understanding of marriage, stated that “Anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” (Matt 10:37)
6.30.2011 | 6:49am
Steve Cornell says:
Excellent piece! Passed it on to many! “In this country, public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes, or pronounces judicial decisions.” -Abraham Lincoln
I view this in association with the two metaphors Jesus used to establish Christian identity: Salt and light. These metaphors communicate a two-fold dilemma for the world. It is:
1. A corrupt place in need of salt.
2. A dark place in need of light.
This communicates a two-fold role for the disciples:
1. To deter decay and corruption as salt (moral/social) through denunciation. We must be a deterrent to social and moral deterioration. “Sometimes standards slip and slide in a community for want of a clear Christian protest.” John Stott
2. To dispel darkness (sin/unbelief) with light through proclamation—dispensing the light of God’s truth.
To fulfill this two-fold role will require two necessities:
1. Distinction (provokingly different): Salt is effective only because it is distinct from that which it permeates.
2. Contact: Salt is of no value apart from the meat it must preserve. Light must shine where the darkness has fallen.
Paralleling the two necessities we have a:
In this role, we face a two-sided danger:
1. Seeking to gain distinction through isolation from the world (meet, eat, retreat) or “holy huddle” (us 4, no more, shut the door) Philippians 2:14-15; I Peter 1:15-16
2. Seeking influence through accommodation of the world, taking our cue from the culture.
In summary, this is our challenge:
1. Maintaining permeating contact without contamination (cf. James 1:27)
2. Living a provokingly different lifestyle in values, morality, attitudes, and speech.
3. Discerning where to draw the lines of distinction— so as to make a difference for Christ (cf. I Peter 1:15-16).
I view this in association with the two metaphors Jesus used to establish Christian identity: Salt and light. These metaphors communicate a two-fold dilemma for the world. It is:
1. A corrupt place in need of salt.
2. A dark place in need of light.
This communicates a two-fold role for the disciples:
1. To deter decay and corruption as salt (moral/social) through denunciation. We must be a deterrent to social and moral deterioration. “Sometimes standards slip and slide in a community for want of a clear Christian protest.” John Stott
2. To dispel darkness (sin/unbelief) with light through proclamation—dispensing the light of God’s truth.
To fulfill this two-fold role will require two necessities:
1. Distinction (provokingly different): Salt is effective only because it is distinct from that which it permeates.
2. Contact: Salt is of no value apart from the meat it must preserve. Light must shine where the darkness has fallen.
Paralleling the two necessities we have a:
In this role, we face a two-sided danger:
1. Seeking to gain distinction through isolation from the world (meet, eat, retreat) or “holy huddle” (us 4, no more, shut the door) Philippians 2:14-15; I Peter 1:15-16
2. Seeking influence through accommodation of the world, taking our cue from the culture.
In summary, this is our challenge:
1. Maintaining permeating contact without contamination (cf. James 1:27)
2. Living a provokingly different lifestyle in values, morality, attitudes, and speech.
3. Discerning where to draw the lines of distinction— so as to make a difference for Christ (cf. I Peter 1:15-16).
6.30.2011 | 8:49am
Ayodele says:
@ David Nickol
You state: "The answer is NOT simple, and any statement that begins, "Societies have ALWAYS related to EVERYONE . . . " is already an indefensible overgeneralization."
It is neither false nor an overgeneralization to make statements in the form of "societies have always" required x or y as conditions from participants in the social contract. It is both correct and universally true as it forms the basis of what is known as the rule of law - to ensure that everyone, regardless of their status and personal preferences, abides by the condition of the social contract.
Disagree if you wish, but statements of this nature are merely descriptive of what mankind in its collective wisdom has historically done to ensure its own survival. They are not to be taken to mean that everything done for the purpose of the common good is perfect. It does mean that that for human societies to endure, it is vital to identify any conditions or behaviors that threatens its survival or long-term interests. This is why the practice of homosexuality was outlawed, condemned or ostracized in virtually every instance.
No rational person can deny that the general concepts of public morality derived from the collective wisdom garnered by generations of human experience over the centuries is far superior to any perceived "rights" pertaining to any individual or groups in the present day. Consider the prohibition on incestuous relationships for example. Why is it outlawed, if the people involved truly love each other? We have even read of cases where the parties in an incestuous relationship were not aware of each other's existence until they met as adults. Does this mean that the relationship should be allowed? Obviously not, because experience has taught that the long-term societal costs (incurable diseases and a compromised gene pool) are far too high a price to pay for the (relatively) short-lived pleasure of the parties involved. Ditto for people who would engage in pedophile relations or bestiality.
The inconvenient truth, as others have pointed out in this forum is that homosexual "marriage" can never be a valid alternative to the God-ordained and God-sanctioned holy matrimony between a man and a woman, because not being sanctioned by the Creator, it is not holy, and being inherently incapable of bearing fruit, cannot be called matrimony.
You state: "The answer is NOT simple, and any statement that begins, "Societies have ALWAYS related to EVERYONE . . . " is already an indefensible overgeneralization."
It is neither false nor an overgeneralization to make statements in the form of "societies have always" required x or y as conditions from participants in the social contract. It is both correct and universally true as it forms the basis of what is known as the rule of law - to ensure that everyone, regardless of their status and personal preferences, abides by the condition of the social contract.
Disagree if you wish, but statements of this nature are merely descriptive of what mankind in its collective wisdom has historically done to ensure its own survival. They are not to be taken to mean that everything done for the purpose of the common good is perfect. It does mean that that for human societies to endure, it is vital to identify any conditions or behaviors that threatens its survival or long-term interests. This is why the practice of homosexuality was outlawed, condemned or ostracized in virtually every instance.
No rational person can deny that the general concepts of public morality derived from the collective wisdom garnered by generations of human experience over the centuries is far superior to any perceived "rights" pertaining to any individual or groups in the present day. Consider the prohibition on incestuous relationships for example. Why is it outlawed, if the people involved truly love each other? We have even read of cases where the parties in an incestuous relationship were not aware of each other's existence until they met as adults. Does this mean that the relationship should be allowed? Obviously not, because experience has taught that the long-term societal costs (incurable diseases and a compromised gene pool) are far too high a price to pay for the (relatively) short-lived pleasure of the parties involved. Ditto for people who would engage in pedophile relations or bestiality.
The inconvenient truth, as others have pointed out in this forum is that homosexual "marriage" can never be a valid alternative to the God-ordained and God-sanctioned holy matrimony between a man and a woman, because not being sanctioned by the Creator, it is not holy, and being inherently incapable of bearing fruit, cannot be called matrimony.
6.30.2011 | 9:28am
Bob Divine says:
Ruth Henriquez says:
In regards to this comment: "To say that your son's immorality DESERVES additional rights so he won't be discriminated is either naive or evil or both."
Sir, it is you who are naive. My son has never asked for additional rights. He asks for the rights enjoyed by other citizens. And that includes the right to not be assaulted, which is a right weakened by much anti-gay rhetoric from religious zealots, whose cries for punishment against gay people inspire attacks.
----------------
Same sex marriage legislation, passed recently in New York, is the creation of a "right" for the State to promote and establish immorality. There is no other way spin it.
Religious zealots are not prosecuting your son, Ms. Ruth. Unfortunately, we do live in a vicious society; it is part and parcel of broken families and a generation of people that are not listening to the Gospel of our Lord. Your son has the right to live how he wants and I have the right not to have the government or the state infringe upon my conscience of what is and what is not moral behaviour.
In regards to this comment: "To say that your son's immorality DESERVES additional rights so he won't be discriminated is either naive or evil or both."
Sir, it is you who are naive. My son has never asked for additional rights. He asks for the rights enjoyed by other citizens. And that includes the right to not be assaulted, which is a right weakened by much anti-gay rhetoric from religious zealots, whose cries for punishment against gay people inspire attacks.
----------------
Same sex marriage legislation, passed recently in New York, is the creation of a "right" for the State to promote and establish immorality. There is no other way spin it.
Religious zealots are not prosecuting your son, Ms. Ruth. Unfortunately, we do live in a vicious society; it is part and parcel of broken families and a generation of people that are not listening to the Gospel of our Lord. Your son has the right to live how he wants and I have the right not to have the government or the state infringe upon my conscience of what is and what is not moral behaviour.
6.30.2011 | 10:05am
Michael says:
Fr. Bryan,
“Perhaps you should visit one of the several AIDS hospices run by the Missionaries of Charity.”
AIDS is caused by promiscuity, not homosexuality. The first populations afflicted by the disease were heterosexual, and globally, the disease afflicts more heterosexuals than homosexuals.
Because my friends live upright lives and because my congregation does as well, I don’t know a single person who has been afflicted with AIDS. Not one. I’m in my fifties, so I know plenty of people—neighbors and coworkers—who have AIDS or know people with it, but the Christians I worship with and the people I make friends with don’t.
Thanks for your service in hospices. Gay men who have chosen to live licentiously desperately need a Christian witness. Your church and my congregation both encourage those men to give up their promiscuity. That’s the ground we Christians share, but it’s lost in the debates held here.
---
BJG,
“I don't think sin has to always carry 'marks of sin', much of it is invisible”
In general, you’re right. It’s a sin to deny the Holy Spirit, for example, but it would be difficult to point to specific people and claim to see a cause and effect, likewise with the failure to keep the Sabbath. But homosexuality belongs to another category of sin. It’s about morality, and I can’t think of another sin of immorality where the marks of sin are not present. Can you?
---
Matt B,
“Your "live and let live" attitude, when you encourage gays "to enter lifelong partnerships and marriages if legal, and, again if called, to raise children, all of these things with the support of the church" is pt. B. You apparently think it is kindness to do this, and that to deny these "legal rights" is morally wrong. This is really specious reasoning. Lots of people are unable to engage in activities that others take for granted. While we accomodate and accept them, we don't change the moral law to ameliorate them. This would be unkind, unjust and morally wrong”
We haven’t changed the moral law, which still requires sexual fidelity and lifelong commitment. What we have changed is the understanding that homosexuality is itself a sin. Members of our congregation have been together for up to thirty-five years, and some of them have raised good, faithful children. Can you explain in a noncircular way how homosexuality is a sin?
“I would propose that your group's christianity does not take into account the Lords ability to miraculously heal… You also deny the witness value and spiritual power of suffering, offering the anodynes of societal acceptance and physicality instead.”
We talk about healing and suffering quite a bit actually.
“Do you believe in the resurrection? Will gay men and women be raised "gay?" If all of this is passing away, why not hold off for a little while, and receive glory in eternity?”
Yes, I believe in the resurrection, but I have no idea whether the gay will be raised gay or any other such details. Paul encouraged all Christians to choose celibacy if they could, but most don’t. Before the last century, Christians told sodomites to give up their sin and either marry or become celibate. Over the last century, however, many Christians have come to recognize that most homosexuals will never marry the opposite sex and that it would be a disaster to encourage them to do so. For these Christians, the question is whether God created an entire group of people who must be celibate or whether there is also an option to form lasting couples that can be helpmeets to one another.
---
Ayodele,
“You don't recognize homosexuality as a sin? Pedophile organizations hold that same position too, and have started their own campaign for acceptance… Your argument as to the "marks of sin" can equally be applied to bestiality, since it obviously doesn't do any of these things either”
I’ve known one pedophile. It was a tragic, horrible case. Students and their parents rushed to defend him at first because they knew him only as a beloved teacher. I knew him when we were all teenagers. I didn’t know him well, but some friends did, and they reported that he was secretive, outwardly outgoing but internally cold. They weren’t surprised to learn years later that he was a predator. Sin had consequences not just for the children he molested but for him as well. Pedophilia is clearly sinful.
So too is bestiality. Sex binds humans together, making them intimate, one. There is no shared sexual life with an animal.
“There are countless stories of men or women, who after being married for decades suddenly "discovered" their homosexual selves, abandoned their spouses and children, and started a homosexual relationship with a person of the same sex. This is not a destruction of marriage?”
Yes, it is destructive. The question is whether the destruction was caused by homosexuality or by a lack of self-knowledge. I’ve known a few people in the situation you describe. They all wish they had figured out their sexuality before marriage. The people I know who have handled it well have stayed in the same city as their former spouse so that their children will know both parents. All Christians, whether homosexual or heterosexual, need better pastoral counseling before marriage.
“anybody familiar with the homosexual lifestyle understands that the process of living it necessarily involves terribly destructive patterns of behavior, such as in having multiple partners within a relatively short period of time.”
You’re describing a subset, not a necessity. Homosexuality doesn’t require people to have multiple partners. Not all homosexuals are promiscuous, and Christianity encourages monogamy. The gay Christians I know aren’t promiscuous.
“Perhaps you should visit one of the several AIDS hospices run by the Missionaries of Charity.”
AIDS is caused by promiscuity, not homosexuality. The first populations afflicted by the disease were heterosexual, and globally, the disease afflicts more heterosexuals than homosexuals.
Because my friends live upright lives and because my congregation does as well, I don’t know a single person who has been afflicted with AIDS. Not one. I’m in my fifties, so I know plenty of people—neighbors and coworkers—who have AIDS or know people with it, but the Christians I worship with and the people I make friends with don’t.
Thanks for your service in hospices. Gay men who have chosen to live licentiously desperately need a Christian witness. Your church and my congregation both encourage those men to give up their promiscuity. That’s the ground we Christians share, but it’s lost in the debates held here.
---
BJG,
“I don't think sin has to always carry 'marks of sin', much of it is invisible”
In general, you’re right. It’s a sin to deny the Holy Spirit, for example, but it would be difficult to point to specific people and claim to see a cause and effect, likewise with the failure to keep the Sabbath. But homosexuality belongs to another category of sin. It’s about morality, and I can’t think of another sin of immorality where the marks of sin are not present. Can you?
---
Matt B,
“Your "live and let live" attitude, when you encourage gays "to enter lifelong partnerships and marriages if legal, and, again if called, to raise children, all of these things with the support of the church" is pt. B. You apparently think it is kindness to do this, and that to deny these "legal rights" is morally wrong. This is really specious reasoning. Lots of people are unable to engage in activities that others take for granted. While we accomodate and accept them, we don't change the moral law to ameliorate them. This would be unkind, unjust and morally wrong”
We haven’t changed the moral law, which still requires sexual fidelity and lifelong commitment. What we have changed is the understanding that homosexuality is itself a sin. Members of our congregation have been together for up to thirty-five years, and some of them have raised good, faithful children. Can you explain in a noncircular way how homosexuality is a sin?
“I would propose that your group's christianity does not take into account the Lords ability to miraculously heal… You also deny the witness value and spiritual power of suffering, offering the anodynes of societal acceptance and physicality instead.”
We talk about healing and suffering quite a bit actually.
“Do you believe in the resurrection? Will gay men and women be raised "gay?" If all of this is passing away, why not hold off for a little while, and receive glory in eternity?”
Yes, I believe in the resurrection, but I have no idea whether the gay will be raised gay or any other such details. Paul encouraged all Christians to choose celibacy if they could, but most don’t. Before the last century, Christians told sodomites to give up their sin and either marry or become celibate. Over the last century, however, many Christians have come to recognize that most homosexuals will never marry the opposite sex and that it would be a disaster to encourage them to do so. For these Christians, the question is whether God created an entire group of people who must be celibate or whether there is also an option to form lasting couples that can be helpmeets to one another.
---
Ayodele,
“You don't recognize homosexuality as a sin? Pedophile organizations hold that same position too, and have started their own campaign for acceptance… Your argument as to the "marks of sin" can equally be applied to bestiality, since it obviously doesn't do any of these things either”
I’ve known one pedophile. It was a tragic, horrible case. Students and their parents rushed to defend him at first because they knew him only as a beloved teacher. I knew him when we were all teenagers. I didn’t know him well, but some friends did, and they reported that he was secretive, outwardly outgoing but internally cold. They weren’t surprised to learn years later that he was a predator. Sin had consequences not just for the children he molested but for him as well. Pedophilia is clearly sinful.
So too is bestiality. Sex binds humans together, making them intimate, one. There is no shared sexual life with an animal.
“There are countless stories of men or women, who after being married for decades suddenly "discovered" their homosexual selves, abandoned their spouses and children, and started a homosexual relationship with a person of the same sex. This is not a destruction of marriage?”
Yes, it is destructive. The question is whether the destruction was caused by homosexuality or by a lack of self-knowledge. I’ve known a few people in the situation you describe. They all wish they had figured out their sexuality before marriage. The people I know who have handled it well have stayed in the same city as their former spouse so that their children will know both parents. All Christians, whether homosexual or heterosexual, need better pastoral counseling before marriage.
“anybody familiar with the homosexual lifestyle understands that the process of living it necessarily involves terribly destructive patterns of behavior, such as in having multiple partners within a relatively short period of time.”
You’re describing a subset, not a necessity. Homosexuality doesn’t require people to have multiple partners. Not all homosexuals are promiscuous, and Christianity encourages monogamy. The gay Christians I know aren’t promiscuous.
6.30.2011 | 10:53am
Mike D'Virgilio says:
Joe said:
“Sadly, such inaction has never happened and is unlikely to occur in the near future. America has produced an overwhelming number of Christians who are adept at explaining why they can support issues that are antithetical to Christianity and depressingly few who can give reasons why we should adhere to the teachings of scripture and the wisdom of the church.”
I think a large part of the reason this is the case is because clergy in America have been cowed into silence by the so called “wall” between church and state. It wasn’t until 1947 in the case Everson v. the NJ Board of Education that this pernicious idea, and secular leftist dream, became our cultural elite’s trump card to shut up their religious countrymen. Now if anything can be vaguely considered political, most clergy won’t touch it, and thus their flock’s buy into the silent affirmation that we Christians can’t “impose” our faith based arguments in the public square.
I remember the so called Equal Rights Amendment as I was growing up, and the inevitability that hard core feminism, and its dominance in public policy as well as culture, was a foregone conclusion. One woman, Phyllis Schlafly, decided that would happen over her dead body, so to speak, and feminism of such a kind is a relic of the acid fueled hippie sixties and seventies. Change can happen, both ways.
“Sadly, such inaction has never happened and is unlikely to occur in the near future. America has produced an overwhelming number of Christians who are adept at explaining why they can support issues that are antithetical to Christianity and depressingly few who can give reasons why we should adhere to the teachings of scripture and the wisdom of the church.”
I think a large part of the reason this is the case is because clergy in America have been cowed into silence by the so called “wall” between church and state. It wasn’t until 1947 in the case Everson v. the NJ Board of Education that this pernicious idea, and secular leftist dream, became our cultural elite’s trump card to shut up their religious countrymen. Now if anything can be vaguely considered political, most clergy won’t touch it, and thus their flock’s buy into the silent affirmation that we Christians can’t “impose” our faith based arguments in the public square.
I remember the so called Equal Rights Amendment as I was growing up, and the inevitability that hard core feminism, and its dominance in public policy as well as culture, was a foregone conclusion. One woman, Phyllis Schlafly, decided that would happen over her dead body, so to speak, and feminism of such a kind is a relic of the acid fueled hippie sixties and seventies. Change can happen, both ways.
6.30.2011 | 12:53pm
JHS says:
Your entire article is invalidated by the following quote from americanvalues.org: ""David has a lot of respect for ideas," says Maggie Gallagher, a former affiliate scholar with the institute and a strong opponent of same-sex marriage. He "created a new niche. He pulled together top scholars from a variety of disciplines concerned about family fragmentation who were not part of the Religious Right, and he gave them a home."
Maggie Gallagher is a founder of the National Organization for Marriage", one of the most radical right wing opponents of same-sex marriage that exists. By characterizing David Blankenhorn as a " a liberal, gay-rights-supporting Democrat and self-professed 'marriage nut'” you are completely misrepresenting his place in the political spectrum. Whatever he calls himself, his ideas about marriage are not progressive. He is as radically right wing as you are.
Maggie Gallagher is a founder of the National Organization for Marriage", one of the most radical right wing opponents of same-sex marriage that exists. By characterizing David Blankenhorn as a " a liberal, gay-rights-supporting Democrat and self-professed 'marriage nut'” you are completely misrepresenting his place in the political spectrum. Whatever he calls himself, his ideas about marriage are not progressive. He is as radically right wing as you are.
6.30.2011 | 2:28pm
Mike D'Virgilio says:
Yeah, JHS, those of us defending an institution that is as old as recorded history are the "radical" ones. You invalidate everything you say because you make stupid statements that everyone who disagrees with you is "radical."
6.30.2011 | 7:15pm
Matt B says:
Michael,
Thank you for responding with care to my assertions. You say that "What we have changed is the understanding that homosexuality is itself a sin." But I have never maintained that homosexuality is a sin. This kind of confusion has been fostered and exploited by gay-rights groups to advance their political and social agenda. Homosexuality is a human condition, like so many other human conditions, that points out our fallen nature. We all fall short of the perfect man, whose image we all bear, and to whose perfection we naturally aspire.
Properly speaking, the gay lifestyle refers not to identity, but to actions. When two men, or two women (or any number of same-sex participants) enter into a relationship that apes the marital relationship between a man and a woman, a serious distortion takes place - as has been well attested by history and tradition. For you to prefer your experience of 50-some years to the long history of revelation in this regard, is frankly presumptive.
I think you can only do this in view of the progressive decline in respect for traditional wisdom that has accompanied the past few decades. The mere fact that a practice garners popular support is no real justification in the long run. Also, the fact that laws are erected and social structures are altered cannot affect eternal truth. As Scripture notes "Wisdom is vindicated by her children."
I know the appeal to authority is not well recognized in our historical time and place. Your very basis for accepting the gay lifestyle is circumscribed to what your eyes have seen, or been convinced of. Your refusal to consider whether the gay lifestyle is an ideal, or merely a poor accomodation to biological imperative tells me that you may be more concerned about expediency than truth. And your unwillingness to commit people with a homosexual orientation to sexual chastity demonstrates that your moral absolute is "feeling good," not "doing good."
But in fact, why should gays be any different from anybody else in this permissive and depraved world of ours. If they want their piece of the action, who can blame them? We're singularly lacking in a clear and consistent witness to the Gospel message. Saints like Teresa of Calcutta and John Paul II shine so brightly because of the general and overwhelming darkness. I myself have been a cause for scandal, and a terrible sinner. I only pray that people who are in the midst of appalling sin may see the light and turn back to the source of righteousness and truth - Christ the Lord (before it's too late).
God bless you and the people you so clearly love.
Thank you for responding with care to my assertions. You say that "What we have changed is the understanding that homosexuality is itself a sin." But I have never maintained that homosexuality is a sin. This kind of confusion has been fostered and exploited by gay-rights groups to advance their political and social agenda. Homosexuality is a human condition, like so many other human conditions, that points out our fallen nature. We all fall short of the perfect man, whose image we all bear, and to whose perfection we naturally aspire.
Properly speaking, the gay lifestyle refers not to identity, but to actions. When two men, or two women (or any number of same-sex participants) enter into a relationship that apes the marital relationship between a man and a woman, a serious distortion takes place - as has been well attested by history and tradition. For you to prefer your experience of 50-some years to the long history of revelation in this regard, is frankly presumptive.
I think you can only do this in view of the progressive decline in respect for traditional wisdom that has accompanied the past few decades. The mere fact that a practice garners popular support is no real justification in the long run. Also, the fact that laws are erected and social structures are altered cannot affect eternal truth. As Scripture notes "Wisdom is vindicated by her children."
I know the appeal to authority is not well recognized in our historical time and place. Your very basis for accepting the gay lifestyle is circumscribed to what your eyes have seen, or been convinced of. Your refusal to consider whether the gay lifestyle is an ideal, or merely a poor accomodation to biological imperative tells me that you may be more concerned about expediency than truth. And your unwillingness to commit people with a homosexual orientation to sexual chastity demonstrates that your moral absolute is "feeling good," not "doing good."
But in fact, why should gays be any different from anybody else in this permissive and depraved world of ours. If they want their piece of the action, who can blame them? We're singularly lacking in a clear and consistent witness to the Gospel message. Saints like Teresa of Calcutta and John Paul II shine so brightly because of the general and overwhelming darkness. I myself have been a cause for scandal, and a terrible sinner. I only pray that people who are in the midst of appalling sin may see the light and turn back to the source of righteousness and truth - Christ the Lord (before it's too late).
God bless you and the people you so clearly love.
6.30.2011 | 9:00pm
Michael says:
Matt B,
You’re welcome. I’m disappointed that you didn’t answer my question concerning how homosexual acts are sinful, how does this form of immorality lead to the destruction of upright living. It’s clear enough that adultery, drunkenness, and theft destroy lives, but not that homosexual acts do.
“But I have never maintained that homosexuality is a sin. This kind of confusion has been fostered and exploited by gay-rights groups to advance their political and social agenda”
I understand the distinction you’re making quite well, but homosexuality can refer to both an orientation and a behavior. Using the phrase “homosexual acts” every time is wearying when “homosexuality” will do just as well.
“When two men, or two women (or any number of same-sex participants) enter into a relationship that apes the marital relationship between a man and a woman, a serious distortion takes place”
But what exactly is that distortion and what specific damage does it create? Why can’t this question be answered in a noncircular way and without appealing to authority? All other moral questions can.
“Your refusal to consider whether the gay lifestyle is an ideal, or merely a poor accomodation to biological imperative tells me that you may be more concerned about expediency than truth”
You are assuming too much and too unfairly. Just because you disagree doesn’t mean that I haven’t considered every angle long, carefully, and prayerfully or sought truth rather than expediency.
“And your unwillingness to commit people with a homosexual orientation to sexual chastity demonstrates that your moral absolute is "feeling good," not "doing good.”
You again assume too much and without charity. The gay Christians I know are far more committed to doing good than they are to feeling good. If you knew them, you might agree.
“We're singularly lacking in a clear and consistent witness to the Gospel message. Saints like Teresa of Calcutta and John Paul II shine so brightly because of the general and overwhelming darkness.”
How about the clear witness offered by the gay male couple in my congregation who adopted children that had spent five years in one foster home after another and who still keep in contact with the addict that bore them as well as her mother? Or perhaps the witness offered by the lesbian couple who, instead of prosecuting the young men who broke into their house, testified for the defense instead and reached out to their families?
Rather than admiring from afar heroic figures like Teresa and John Paul, you might spent some real time with gay Christians who take the faith as seriously as you do.
You’re welcome. I’m disappointed that you didn’t answer my question concerning how homosexual acts are sinful, how does this form of immorality lead to the destruction of upright living. It’s clear enough that adultery, drunkenness, and theft destroy lives, but not that homosexual acts do.
“But I have never maintained that homosexuality is a sin. This kind of confusion has been fostered and exploited by gay-rights groups to advance their political and social agenda”
I understand the distinction you’re making quite well, but homosexuality can refer to both an orientation and a behavior. Using the phrase “homosexual acts” every time is wearying when “homosexuality” will do just as well.
“When two men, or two women (or any number of same-sex participants) enter into a relationship that apes the marital relationship between a man and a woman, a serious distortion takes place”
But what exactly is that distortion and what specific damage does it create? Why can’t this question be answered in a noncircular way and without appealing to authority? All other moral questions can.
“Your refusal to consider whether the gay lifestyle is an ideal, or merely a poor accomodation to biological imperative tells me that you may be more concerned about expediency than truth”
You are assuming too much and too unfairly. Just because you disagree doesn’t mean that I haven’t considered every angle long, carefully, and prayerfully or sought truth rather than expediency.
“And your unwillingness to commit people with a homosexual orientation to sexual chastity demonstrates that your moral absolute is "feeling good," not "doing good.”
You again assume too much and without charity. The gay Christians I know are far more committed to doing good than they are to feeling good. If you knew them, you might agree.
“We're singularly lacking in a clear and consistent witness to the Gospel message. Saints like Teresa of Calcutta and John Paul II shine so brightly because of the general and overwhelming darkness.”
How about the clear witness offered by the gay male couple in my congregation who adopted children that had spent five years in one foster home after another and who still keep in contact with the addict that bore them as well as her mother? Or perhaps the witness offered by the lesbian couple who, instead of prosecuting the young men who broke into their house, testified for the defense instead and reached out to their families?
Rather than admiring from afar heroic figures like Teresa and John Paul, you might spent some real time with gay Christians who take the faith as seriously as you do.
6.30.2011 | 10:31pm
Fr. Bryan says:
Michael -
"Homosexuality" is sinful in that non unitive sex is sinful. Anal sex as well as "heavy petting" and oral sex that does not result in bodily union has always been considered sinful by Christians in that they are not the way that God intended for human beings to participate in sex. It is considered sinful for straight couples as well as homosexual couples.
During the sexual act each participant must give of themselves while at the same time accept the gift of the other. Homosexuals cannot do this. Either the act they perform will be unequal in that one participant is passive while the other dominant (anal sex) or they must perform two seperate acts simultaneously (mutual masturbation, for an example).
There is something crucial that is destroyed during such acts, whether they are performed by two men or a man and a woman. It is the image of God, which their relations were created to make visible. These acts do not make God's unity visible, because the acts are not unitive. It does not make the equality of the persons in the Godhead visible because the participants are unequal (one is passive while the other is dominant). It does not make God's life giving love visible because the acts are by their very nature sterile.
"Homosexuality" is sinful in that non unitive sex is sinful. Anal sex as well as "heavy petting" and oral sex that does not result in bodily union has always been considered sinful by Christians in that they are not the way that God intended for human beings to participate in sex. It is considered sinful for straight couples as well as homosexual couples.
During the sexual act each participant must give of themselves while at the same time accept the gift of the other. Homosexuals cannot do this. Either the act they perform will be unequal in that one participant is passive while the other dominant (anal sex) or they must perform two seperate acts simultaneously (mutual masturbation, for an example).
There is something crucial that is destroyed during such acts, whether they are performed by two men or a man and a woman. It is the image of God, which their relations were created to make visible. These acts do not make God's unity visible, because the acts are not unitive. It does not make the equality of the persons in the Godhead visible because the participants are unequal (one is passive while the other is dominant). It does not make God's life giving love visible because the acts are by their very nature sterile.
6.30.2011 | 11:11pm
BJG says:
@Michael, you ask whether I can think of another sin of immorality where the marks of sin are not present. I think your definition of morality is too narrow here; is the sin against the Holy Spirit not part of morality? Also, think of Luke 11:34 - is Jesus talking there about marks of sin which can be detected? Even Matt 7:20 does not imply that the fruit of actions is anything other than the result of a slow process of healthy or unhealthy growth. As another commentator has suggested, the idea that sin has to carry marks can be extended to legitimize other actions which most of us would find unwholesome, like bestiality. Even certain abusers of children justify their acts by seeing them in the context of 'love'; and indeed, I have no difficulty imagining that a child who finds themselves in the hands of an abuser who sincerely believes that they love them, and who really does in every other way treat that child with affection and respect, that child may take years to come to realize that something was not right in that relationship (if they ever do). I'm not comparing adult gay people to these groups, but I'm trying to say that sin, moral sin included, by no means always leaves any calling card. If I commit adultery with a married woman and noone ever finds out about it, and I return to my wife having repented sincerely in private, and the woman I commited adultery with similarly returns with sincerity to her husband, and we never sin with each other again, then what 'marks of sin' were there left after our act of immorality?
I find what Fr Bryan is saying about the true thirst for intimacy and friendship between men really makes a lot of sense - thank you Fr Bryan.
I find what Fr Bryan is saying about the true thirst for intimacy and friendship between men really makes a lot of sense - thank you Fr Bryan.
7.1.2011 | 5:33am
Matt B says:
Michael,
Don't you find it curious that this discussion has come down to rational people disagreeing over terms like "coitus" and "mutual masturbation?" Instead of celebrating people for the great wealth of their spiritual and physical dimensions, it's come down nit-picking over essentially prosaic bodily functions. Is gay sex any more inherently deficient than sex in adultery? These are questions for scholastic philosophers.
That's why I agree with your approach of focusing on actual people, and concentrating on their needs. And rejoicing over the blessings they bring to the table. It has never been my intention, nor I believe the intention of many of these commenters (despite the accusations of homophobia) to disparage individuals. Gay people, like all people, are capable of great courage and virtue.
And when you talk about limiting freedoms, you do so against a backdrop of a society enmeshed in a long history of license. So any restrictions on personal behavior is considered "singling out." Why should gay people limit their behaviors when straight people clearly have not - also to the detriment of children and society. Comparatively speaking, gay misdemeanors pale before the horror of abortion and divorce committed by heterosexual people. Can we therefore "come down heavy" on gay people trying to marry?
I view the spectacle of "gay marriage" as merely a final stage of this history of depradation. I do rely on history and tradition to tell me this, but also on my experience and common sense. It seems a prima facie case to me.
But how do I make such a distinction without wounding actual people, who are in many cases more virtuous and intelligent than I am? How do you distinguish between charity and truth? There has to be a way. Certainly to acquiesce quietly, smile and nod, does not constitute true charity.
That's my dilemma, and I think the dilemma of many people here. We're not fascists or phobic. But the truth you're traducing is deeply held and integral to society (as we have known it). How do we reconcile our Christian commitment to gay people, and all people, with the requirements of justice and truth?
I acknowledge the heroic virtue of the people you mention, and I mourn their tragic flaws. God bless you.
Don't you find it curious that this discussion has come down to rational people disagreeing over terms like "coitus" and "mutual masturbation?" Instead of celebrating people for the great wealth of their spiritual and physical dimensions, it's come down nit-picking over essentially prosaic bodily functions. Is gay sex any more inherently deficient than sex in adultery? These are questions for scholastic philosophers.
That's why I agree with your approach of focusing on actual people, and concentrating on their needs. And rejoicing over the blessings they bring to the table. It has never been my intention, nor I believe the intention of many of these commenters (despite the accusations of homophobia) to disparage individuals. Gay people, like all people, are capable of great courage and virtue.
And when you talk about limiting freedoms, you do so against a backdrop of a society enmeshed in a long history of license. So any restrictions on personal behavior is considered "singling out." Why should gay people limit their behaviors when straight people clearly have not - also to the detriment of children and society. Comparatively speaking, gay misdemeanors pale before the horror of abortion and divorce committed by heterosexual people. Can we therefore "come down heavy" on gay people trying to marry?
I view the spectacle of "gay marriage" as merely a final stage of this history of depradation. I do rely on history and tradition to tell me this, but also on my experience and common sense. It seems a prima facie case to me.
But how do I make such a distinction without wounding actual people, who are in many cases more virtuous and intelligent than I am? How do you distinguish between charity and truth? There has to be a way. Certainly to acquiesce quietly, smile and nod, does not constitute true charity.
That's my dilemma, and I think the dilemma of many people here. We're not fascists or phobic. But the truth you're traducing is deeply held and integral to society (as we have known it). How do we reconcile our Christian commitment to gay people, and all people, with the requirements of justice and truth?
I acknowledge the heroic virtue of the people you mention, and I mourn their tragic flaws. God bless you.
7.1.2011 | 7:01am
gorgo says:
For evil people who will not acknowledge the God Who Is, it's all about power. In the case of gay marriage, it's all about the power of denying the tradition of marriage to others in anything but their own tainted form, while engaging in despicable perversion. In other words, it's all about having the power of forcing everyone else to accept them as normal while, at the same time, no one has the power to judge them for sodomizing each other. It's really that simple.
7.1.2011 | 9:44am
smg45acp says:
I place much of the blame for our destruction on politicians.
Our current system of government is based on getting the most number of voters.
Gays are just another niche group that politicians are targeting, so they give in to their demands in hope getting their votes.
The same could be said of many other groups politicians pander to.
Even if the policies they advocate are destructive, it doesn't matter because it gives the politicians the votes they want to stay in office.
After we self destruct, I firmly believe we will end up in a police state or a monarchy.
The only other solution might be to severely limit the number of people that have the right to vote. This could limit politicians ability to always appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Historians will certainly have a good laugh looking back at our stupidity.
Our current system of government is based on getting the most number of voters.
Gays are just another niche group that politicians are targeting, so they give in to their demands in hope getting their votes.
The same could be said of many other groups politicians pander to.
Even if the policies they advocate are destructive, it doesn't matter because it gives the politicians the votes they want to stay in office.
After we self destruct, I firmly believe we will end up in a police state or a monarchy.
The only other solution might be to severely limit the number of people that have the right to vote. This could limit politicians ability to always appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Historians will certainly have a good laugh looking back at our stupidity.
7.1.2011 | 10:34am
Don L says:
The reason the word "bigot" works so well (and all the various race cards, sexist cards, speciesist cards etc) is because of one thing -the basis of all sin - "pride."
Man so foolishly worries about what others think of him, rather than what God thinks of him With pride it becomes what he must then think of himself.
Dump pride and the world become sane and man becomes free. Your value is impeccably, and untouchably high, beyong the reach of pride, once you realize what it means to have been deliberately created in the image of an all loving, all good, all perfect, God -precious , unique, and unrepeatable.
Man so foolishly worries about what others think of him, rather than what God thinks of him With pride it becomes what he must then think of himself.
Dump pride and the world become sane and man becomes free. Your value is impeccably, and untouchably high, beyong the reach of pride, once you realize what it means to have been deliberately created in the image of an all loving, all good, all perfect, God -precious , unique, and unrepeatable.
7.1.2011 | 12:17pm
Michael says:
Fr. Bryan,
If I understand you correctly, homosexual sex leads to two harms: (1) it’s not the way God intended humans to have sex, and (2) the couple can’t give and accept at the same time.
The first harm is to an ideal. It doesn’t point to concrete effects the way that adultery harms a marriage.
The second harm I don’t buy. My understanding is that the active-passive distinction belongs to an earlier understanding of how sex works, and frankly, the distinction doesn’t capture my experience of sex at all. I can’t think of a time when I would describe either my experience or my wife’s as “passive.” The psychology and physicality of sex works in far more complex ways than is captured by such a simple distinction. Furthermore, my wife belongs to those 40% of American women who report that they do not experience orgasm through intercourse. To bring her there, I have to use techniques that lesbians routinely use.
I notice that you didn’t respond to my claim that AIDS is caused by promiscuity, not homosexuality. Does that mean you agree with this distinction?
---
BJG,
I’m not a theologian, so you’re probably right that my definition of morality is probably too narrow. Still, I’m sure some theologian or philosopher has made some more rigorous distinction along the same lines.
So let me put it another way. In First Corinthians, Paul states that “the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, the self-indulgent, sodomites, thieves, misers, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers, none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.”
The presence of idolatry on the list is a statement of faith. You can’t inherit the kingdom if you place some idol above God. The question for me is whether Paul thinks of sodomy as a statement of faith as he does idolatry or whether he thinks of sodomy as like adultery, theft, and slander—sins that lead plainly and directly to broken lives and a broken society. The adulterer thinks he can compartmentalize his life and that his adultery won’t ruin the rest of his relations with others. The same is true of the thief, miser, and drunkard. Paul appears to think of the sodomite in the same way, but some Christians have come to see that he’s wrong to think so. Sodomy doesn’t infect all of your relations with others.
Once you clean up your act and stop swindling, slandering, and drinking, you find that you live a better, healthier life. You stop treating people and things merely as objects of your pleasure. Paul seems to believe that once you stop sodomizing, you are likewise more capable of living the life God intended you to live. And it’s certainly true that some Christians have quit homosexuality and the rest of their lives fell into place.
But then there are many other gay Christians for whom their sexuality is no more relevant to their relations to others than mine is. I think my honesty with and care for coworkers, neighbors, friends, family, and the unfortunate is of a piece with my honesty with and care for my wife. And the same seems to be true for the gay Christians I know who are in long-term, committed relationships. Their love and care for their partner affects every other relation they have with others.
Does this distinction make more sense now?
---
Matt B,
I’m glad to hear that you’re interested in the same pastoral concerns I am.
I want to better understand what you mean when you say that “Gay people, like all people, are capable of great courage and virtue.” Do you mean that in a compartmentalized way, or would you agree with the description I gave in the second-to-last paragraph in my answer to BJG?
Much of your response is addressed to things I haven’t said. You talk about “homophobia” and “limiting freedoms,” but I haven’t raised those issues.
The dilemma you describe of finding a way to reconcile the Christian commitment to gay people with the requirements of justice and truth is a profound one, and it belongs to all sides in many debates. While you’re debating this dilemma, I’m likewise on the horns of a similar dilemma myself: How do I reconcile my Christian commitment to those Christians who persist in misunderstanding homosexuality with the requirements of truth and justice? We talk about this issue quite a bit in my congregation.
The culture wars have had a profound and divisive effect on Christian churches everywhere, and it didn’t just start in the eighties. It’s been a part of the landscape for at least a century before that. And we need to be better models of how to debate these central questions and still show the face of Christ in them.
If I understand you correctly, homosexual sex leads to two harms: (1) it’s not the way God intended humans to have sex, and (2) the couple can’t give and accept at the same time.
The first harm is to an ideal. It doesn’t point to concrete effects the way that adultery harms a marriage.
The second harm I don’t buy. My understanding is that the active-passive distinction belongs to an earlier understanding of how sex works, and frankly, the distinction doesn’t capture my experience of sex at all. I can’t think of a time when I would describe either my experience or my wife’s as “passive.” The psychology and physicality of sex works in far more complex ways than is captured by such a simple distinction. Furthermore, my wife belongs to those 40% of American women who report that they do not experience orgasm through intercourse. To bring her there, I have to use techniques that lesbians routinely use.
I notice that you didn’t respond to my claim that AIDS is caused by promiscuity, not homosexuality. Does that mean you agree with this distinction?
---
BJG,
I’m not a theologian, so you’re probably right that my definition of morality is probably too narrow. Still, I’m sure some theologian or philosopher has made some more rigorous distinction along the same lines.
So let me put it another way. In First Corinthians, Paul states that “the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, the self-indulgent, sodomites, thieves, misers, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers, none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.”
The presence of idolatry on the list is a statement of faith. You can’t inherit the kingdom if you place some idol above God. The question for me is whether Paul thinks of sodomy as a statement of faith as he does idolatry or whether he thinks of sodomy as like adultery, theft, and slander—sins that lead plainly and directly to broken lives and a broken society. The adulterer thinks he can compartmentalize his life and that his adultery won’t ruin the rest of his relations with others. The same is true of the thief, miser, and drunkard. Paul appears to think of the sodomite in the same way, but some Christians have come to see that he’s wrong to think so. Sodomy doesn’t infect all of your relations with others.
Once you clean up your act and stop swindling, slandering, and drinking, you find that you live a better, healthier life. You stop treating people and things merely as objects of your pleasure. Paul seems to believe that once you stop sodomizing, you are likewise more capable of living the life God intended you to live. And it’s certainly true that some Christians have quit homosexuality and the rest of their lives fell into place.
But then there are many other gay Christians for whom their sexuality is no more relevant to their relations to others than mine is. I think my honesty with and care for coworkers, neighbors, friends, family, and the unfortunate is of a piece with my honesty with and care for my wife. And the same seems to be true for the gay Christians I know who are in long-term, committed relationships. Their love and care for their partner affects every other relation they have with others.
Does this distinction make more sense now?
---
Matt B,
I’m glad to hear that you’re interested in the same pastoral concerns I am.
I want to better understand what you mean when you say that “Gay people, like all people, are capable of great courage and virtue.” Do you mean that in a compartmentalized way, or would you agree with the description I gave in the second-to-last paragraph in my answer to BJG?
Much of your response is addressed to things I haven’t said. You talk about “homophobia” and “limiting freedoms,” but I haven’t raised those issues.
The dilemma you describe of finding a way to reconcile the Christian commitment to gay people with the requirements of justice and truth is a profound one, and it belongs to all sides in many debates. While you’re debating this dilemma, I’m likewise on the horns of a similar dilemma myself: How do I reconcile my Christian commitment to those Christians who persist in misunderstanding homosexuality with the requirements of truth and justice? We talk about this issue quite a bit in my congregation.
The culture wars have had a profound and divisive effect on Christian churches everywhere, and it didn’t just start in the eighties. It’s been a part of the landscape for at least a century before that. And we need to be better models of how to debate these central questions and still show the face of Christ in them.
7.1.2011 | 1:54pm
Fr. Bryan says:
Michael-
First of all, I did not respond to your claim that AIDS is caused by promiscuity because AIDS is not caused by promiscuity. AIDS is caused by the HIV virus, and people become infected with the HIV virus either through sexual activity or blood to blood contact (sharing needle or blood transfusion to name two). Obviously, the more sexual partners one has, the greater the odds of acquiring the disease, but to say that HIV is caused by promiscuity is quite false.
Furthermore, it is not merely the number of partners that one has that increases the likelihood of transmission. It is the type of sex that one has, and anal sex greatly increases the likelihood, as opposed to unitive sex between a man and a woman.
So your point that promiscuity increases the likelihood of HIV transmission is taken, and nobody would disagree with it. Of course, if everyone only had relations within the context of marriage HIV transmission would cease. But it is wrong, and obviously wrong, I think, to admit this without recognizing the type of relations also adds to the problem.
Now regarding the relations that you describe regarding your wife, I simply point out that this is *possibly* by its very nature still different from two lesbians doing the same thing. The reason is that the "techniques" you use can still bring you and your wife to unity, whereas this unity is impossible for two women. If you were seeking my pastoral advice I would tell you that these techniques should be used to bring about unity, and not as a substitute for unity. In other words, you and your wife should attempt to finish the act united as one flesh. If you are using the techniques as a substitute for unitive sex I would label that as sinful, for the same reasons that it is sinful for two women to perform them.
I hope the difference between your relations with your wife and the homosexual couple are clear.
"The first harm is to an ideal. It doesn’t point to concrete effects the way that adultery harms a marriage. "
Not sure what you mean here. Shouldn't everything we do be striving for an ideal. Did our lord not tell us, "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:48)?
First of all, I did not respond to your claim that AIDS is caused by promiscuity because AIDS is not caused by promiscuity. AIDS is caused by the HIV virus, and people become infected with the HIV virus either through sexual activity or blood to blood contact (sharing needle or blood transfusion to name two). Obviously, the more sexual partners one has, the greater the odds of acquiring the disease, but to say that HIV is caused by promiscuity is quite false.
Furthermore, it is not merely the number of partners that one has that increases the likelihood of transmission. It is the type of sex that one has, and anal sex greatly increases the likelihood, as opposed to unitive sex between a man and a woman.
So your point that promiscuity increases the likelihood of HIV transmission is taken, and nobody would disagree with it. Of course, if everyone only had relations within the context of marriage HIV transmission would cease. But it is wrong, and obviously wrong, I think, to admit this without recognizing the type of relations also adds to the problem.
Now regarding the relations that you describe regarding your wife, I simply point out that this is *possibly* by its very nature still different from two lesbians doing the same thing. The reason is that the "techniques" you use can still bring you and your wife to unity, whereas this unity is impossible for two women. If you were seeking my pastoral advice I would tell you that these techniques should be used to bring about unity, and not as a substitute for unity. In other words, you and your wife should attempt to finish the act united as one flesh. If you are using the techniques as a substitute for unitive sex I would label that as sinful, for the same reasons that it is sinful for two women to perform them.
I hope the difference between your relations with your wife and the homosexual couple are clear.
"The first harm is to an ideal. It doesn’t point to concrete effects the way that adultery harms a marriage. "
Not sure what you mean here. Shouldn't everything we do be striving for an ideal. Did our lord not tell us, "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:48)?
7.1.2011 | 2:56pm
Bob says:
Most organized religion is fairly useless today. The church has become the equivalent of a politician, yet instead of pandering for political donations and votes they pander for tithed donations and to be left alone. Sadly, a great many churches live within their own circle, some out of fear of the rest of the world and some out of snobbery (unfortunately, many because of the latter).
The role of the church and its parishioners should be that of outreach, interacting with only its own members. I've seen churches that have enough members that they have their own softball teams, which only play against each other. They have picnics at which only their own members can attend. They are the literal embodiment of "preaching to the choir." And, can easily be compared to far left-wing liberals that cannot stand being in the same room as anyone who does not share their own liberal disease - hating, disliking or unable to trust people who are not part of their parish.
And, while these people are proud of their Christianity, most will remain silent when a conversation would warrant they proclaim their beliefs. Thus, the liberals who scream from megaphones about killing babies and gay marriage are all but unchallenged as Christians fold their arms and wait for "someone" to speak up.
There are ways to discuss religion without turning people off or "looking like a 'Jesus freak'," unfortunately, the few Christians who speak publicly about their faith are rarely the ones who understand that. It's not necessarily about debating issues and quoting scripture - it's about simply proclaiming your religion, as Christian or Jew...instead of remaining silent. The silence, and waiting for "someone" to say or do "something" is why we are where we are. The athiests never remain silent...neither should we.
The role of the church and its parishioners should be that of outreach, interacting with only its own members. I've seen churches that have enough members that they have their own softball teams, which only play against each other. They have picnics at which only their own members can attend. They are the literal embodiment of "preaching to the choir." And, can easily be compared to far left-wing liberals that cannot stand being in the same room as anyone who does not share their own liberal disease - hating, disliking or unable to trust people who are not part of their parish.
And, while these people are proud of their Christianity, most will remain silent when a conversation would warrant they proclaim their beliefs. Thus, the liberals who scream from megaphones about killing babies and gay marriage are all but unchallenged as Christians fold their arms and wait for "someone" to speak up.
There are ways to discuss religion without turning people off or "looking like a 'Jesus freak'," unfortunately, the few Christians who speak publicly about their faith are rarely the ones who understand that. It's not necessarily about debating issues and quoting scripture - it's about simply proclaiming your religion, as Christian or Jew...instead of remaining silent. The silence, and waiting for "someone" to say or do "something" is why we are where we are. The athiests never remain silent...neither should we.
7.1.2011 | 3:52pm
Michael says:
Fr. Bryan,
Please recall that the AIDS question came up because you responded to my claim that homosexuality per se does not destroy lives by offering AIDS as an example of the destruction caused by homosexuality. I then argued the destructiveness of AIDS stems not from homosexuality but promiscuity.
Your points that AIDS is actually caused by HIV and that promiscuity doesn’t “cause” HIV but increases the odds of transmission are points well taken, but they argue against your initial claim as well. More to the point is your argument that “if everyone only had relations within the context of marriage HIV transmission would cease.” I would add that if your “everyone” included gays, then HIV transmission would truly cease. My point again is that the destruction you saw in those hospices can be laid at the feet of promiscuity. Homosexuality per se is not the problem.
I’m not sure I’m following you description of sex, so you might have to help me out. It sounds to me that when you say “unity” you mean intercourse. Is that right? If it is, then I wouldn’t agree with your picture of how sex works. The intimacy and the conviction that my wife and I are indeed one flesh arise not from the kind, number, or order of sex acts we have. The conviction doesn’t require intercourse or even orgasm from both of us. Each sexual experience is what it is, and together they add up to a fuller picture that cannot be separated from how we live the rest of marital life. In fact, the relation between our sexual experiences and our other marital experiences shifts over time, sometimes being compensatory, additive, restorative, revelatory, ordinary, exploratory, etc. To analyze the sex life of a couple by asking whether the right body parts are being put in the right places seems to me to ask the wrong questions.
I can see why my use of the word “ideal” might be confusing. What I mean is that the harm is not concrete. As I explain to BJG, it’s very clear that adultery, theft, and drunkenness will harm your relations with your family, friends, employer, etc. These sins make you a bad husband, father, friend, employee, etc., and they magnify, making your life spin out of control. I’m asking whether homosexuality has similar concrete harms, and it appears that it doesn’t. Other sexual sins—like adultery and promiscuity—have concrete harms, but apparently homosexuality does not. Is that true?
Please recall that the AIDS question came up because you responded to my claim that homosexuality per se does not destroy lives by offering AIDS as an example of the destruction caused by homosexuality. I then argued the destructiveness of AIDS stems not from homosexuality but promiscuity.
Your points that AIDS is actually caused by HIV and that promiscuity doesn’t “cause” HIV but increases the odds of transmission are points well taken, but they argue against your initial claim as well. More to the point is your argument that “if everyone only had relations within the context of marriage HIV transmission would cease.” I would add that if your “everyone” included gays, then HIV transmission would truly cease. My point again is that the destruction you saw in those hospices can be laid at the feet of promiscuity. Homosexuality per se is not the problem.
I’m not sure I’m following you description of sex, so you might have to help me out. It sounds to me that when you say “unity” you mean intercourse. Is that right? If it is, then I wouldn’t agree with your picture of how sex works. The intimacy and the conviction that my wife and I are indeed one flesh arise not from the kind, number, or order of sex acts we have. The conviction doesn’t require intercourse or even orgasm from both of us. Each sexual experience is what it is, and together they add up to a fuller picture that cannot be separated from how we live the rest of marital life. In fact, the relation between our sexual experiences and our other marital experiences shifts over time, sometimes being compensatory, additive, restorative, revelatory, ordinary, exploratory, etc. To analyze the sex life of a couple by asking whether the right body parts are being put in the right places seems to me to ask the wrong questions.
I can see why my use of the word “ideal” might be confusing. What I mean is that the harm is not concrete. As I explain to BJG, it’s very clear that adultery, theft, and drunkenness will harm your relations with your family, friends, employer, etc. These sins make you a bad husband, father, friend, employee, etc., and they magnify, making your life spin out of control. I’m asking whether homosexuality has similar concrete harms, and it appears that it doesn’t. Other sexual sins—like adultery and promiscuity—have concrete harms, but apparently homosexuality does not. Is that true?
7.1.2011 | 5:48pm
Jay says:
Yes, it's interesting that the same people who a few years ago were saying that marriage is an outdated and oppressive institution, are now fighting for the right of homosexuals to marry. So, they want MORE people to be oppressed? I guess they would say that marriage is the oppression of women by men, which of course would not apply to gay marriage.
That is, their position seems to be that no one should get married EXCEPT homosexuals.
That is, their position seems to be that no one should get married EXCEPT homosexuals.
7.1.2011 | 5:49pm
Fr. Bryan says:
Michael,
This will be my last comment, unfortunately, because my weekend is really busy (as are all weekends for the vast majority of priests).
I actually didn't bring up AIDS. I brought up an AIDS hospice, and I was trying to avoid being overly graphic in my description, but I guess it was lost on you. Sorry for that. I was trying to explain that I saw damage to a part of these men's bodies, their rectum, when I changed their diapers. A lot of the men were in diapers, even when they were still able to walk around and change themselves, because of their inability to "hold it in." So my point was not that AIDS is damaging (although it is) but that anal sex, which these men participated in often were damaging their bodies.
Yes, by unity I mean intercourse. I agree that being one flesh involves more than types and numbers of sex acts and relates to the whole of married life. However, just because being one flesh is not restricted to the marital act alone does not mean that it is equivalent to all other acts of love between spouses. It is elevated beyond other acts of love that spouses might regularly perform for each other. This is because it is in this act where they actually become one flesh. Their consent to marry is consummated, and the vows that they made to each other are renewed and re-sealed each time they unite.
So I guess I disagree with this statement: "The conviction [that we are one flesh] doesn’t require intercourse or even orgasm from both of us." Because you are embodied, intercourse is needed for you and your wife to truly unite as persons. To say that you don't would, in my mind, be a step towards dualism. That could wind up being very destructive.
Now this statement, I agree with: "Each sexual experience is what it is, and together they add up to a fuller picture that cannot be separated from how we live the rest of marital life." This is exactly why an act which is not a participation in what God intended to be "natural" is extremely important. If an act is demeaning to one of you, it will erode away at the other aspects of your married life and the one who demeans the other will learn to demean in other ways. Needless to say, I'm pretty strongly convicted that anal sex and oral sex that is not aimed at completing an act of intercourse is sinful. It simply isn't expressive of the type of love that married people are supposed to have for each other.
I'll close with this. Love between two men (or two women) is obviously possible. The goods from this however are not called "marriage." It is called "friendship." All of the good things present in the relationship between two gay men (and there are many) are contained in their friendship. Being "married" won't make this relationship any more good than it is. And last I checked, the government protects the rights of two men to be friends. If the state claims the right to redefine marriage it will reduce straight marriages to mere friendships, which would be damaging to the institution.
And with that, I have to go. Thanks for the discussion Michael. I'll check back for your response, but the last word is yours. May God continue to bless your marriage with your wife and may your love for each other always make visible the love of Christ's love for his Church.
This will be my last comment, unfortunately, because my weekend is really busy (as are all weekends for the vast majority of priests).
I actually didn't bring up AIDS. I brought up an AIDS hospice, and I was trying to avoid being overly graphic in my description, but I guess it was lost on you. Sorry for that. I was trying to explain that I saw damage to a part of these men's bodies, their rectum, when I changed their diapers. A lot of the men were in diapers, even when they were still able to walk around and change themselves, because of their inability to "hold it in." So my point was not that AIDS is damaging (although it is) but that anal sex, which these men participated in often were damaging their bodies.
Yes, by unity I mean intercourse. I agree that being one flesh involves more than types and numbers of sex acts and relates to the whole of married life. However, just because being one flesh is not restricted to the marital act alone does not mean that it is equivalent to all other acts of love between spouses. It is elevated beyond other acts of love that spouses might regularly perform for each other. This is because it is in this act where they actually become one flesh. Their consent to marry is consummated, and the vows that they made to each other are renewed and re-sealed each time they unite.
So I guess I disagree with this statement: "The conviction [that we are one flesh] doesn’t require intercourse or even orgasm from both of us." Because you are embodied, intercourse is needed for you and your wife to truly unite as persons. To say that you don't would, in my mind, be a step towards dualism. That could wind up being very destructive.
Now this statement, I agree with: "Each sexual experience is what it is, and together they add up to a fuller picture that cannot be separated from how we live the rest of marital life." This is exactly why an act which is not a participation in what God intended to be "natural" is extremely important. If an act is demeaning to one of you, it will erode away at the other aspects of your married life and the one who demeans the other will learn to demean in other ways. Needless to say, I'm pretty strongly convicted that anal sex and oral sex that is not aimed at completing an act of intercourse is sinful. It simply isn't expressive of the type of love that married people are supposed to have for each other.
I'll close with this. Love between two men (or two women) is obviously possible. The goods from this however are not called "marriage." It is called "friendship." All of the good things present in the relationship between two gay men (and there are many) are contained in their friendship. Being "married" won't make this relationship any more good than it is. And last I checked, the government protects the rights of two men to be friends. If the state claims the right to redefine marriage it will reduce straight marriages to mere friendships, which would be damaging to the institution.
And with that, I have to go. Thanks for the discussion Michael. I'll check back for your response, but the last word is yours. May God continue to bless your marriage with your wife and may your love for each other always make visible the love of Christ's love for his Church.
7.1.2011 | 6:02pm
Matt B says:
Michael,
The conversation about the validity of homosexual acts has become enormously reductive, as both sides seek a "least common denominator," or "bright line test." As we analyze to an increasingly finer logical point, we're wandering further and further from our common reality - much as modern physics, with it's talk of quarks and photons has no relevance to even reasonably intelligent people.
The challenge you set out at least meets the test of bringing this discussion to a point where all can meet, discuss things and come to a conclusion. I question some of your logic: moving from particular acquaintances of yours, whom you lionize, to the general question of homosexual adaptability to marriage. But I'm willing to go along with it, if you indulge a few exaggerations of mine.
You can't accuse individuals who are at least striving for some kind of holiness with the eccentricities of their class. So when we see drunken gays parading around in g-strings in public - how can we logically attibute this attitude or behavior to quiet living people in committed relationships (although same-sex).
This kind of commitment necessarily precludes a "bath house life" for which homosexuals have been so properly castigated. The people who pursue this way of life are explicitly rejected, if I'm understanding it correctly, by your adoptive gay parents.
So I agree completely with the impossibility of imputing generalizations, no matter how well founded, on individuals who may completely defy the expectations those generalizations engender. To ascribe, in contravention to the gay lifesyle, those behaviors which by your definition, these particular gay people have disavowed, is illogical.
So I will address the gay members of your congregation, who forge life-lasting committed relationships, and as same-sex couples adopt children in a admirable and well-intentioned self-abnegation, not as horrible animals who need to be extricated from the body politic, or as misfits who threaten the well-being or even the existence of social commity, thusly:
I thank you for overcoming the proclivities of your class. You have established a valid claim for the respect of your neighbors by overcoming both social and hereditary disadvantages, to do real good for yourselves and for others. And besides this, you have followed to the best of your ability and according to the dictates of your conscience, the teachings of your Savior and the law of love.
I ask you now to consider going beyond the unquestioned good you have already accomplished, to pursue a higher level of holiness, a deeper self-awareness, and a more perfect chastity. Not that your journey thus far has left you bereft of virtue or holiness, but that there is still, far more to accomplish - if you dare!
At that point I would explain about chastity, a much maligned and little understood virtue in our day. If your friends are as Christ-motivated as you insist, they would go for it. After all, I'm assuming yours is a "titheing" congregation. The tithe is the toe, chastity is the bath of love.
Once again, Michael, I thank you for clarifying this often contentious issue.
The conversation about the validity of homosexual acts has become enormously reductive, as both sides seek a "least common denominator," or "bright line test." As we analyze to an increasingly finer logical point, we're wandering further and further from our common reality - much as modern physics, with it's talk of quarks and photons has no relevance to even reasonably intelligent people.
The challenge you set out at least meets the test of bringing this discussion to a point where all can meet, discuss things and come to a conclusion. I question some of your logic: moving from particular acquaintances of yours, whom you lionize, to the general question of homosexual adaptability to marriage. But I'm willing to go along with it, if you indulge a few exaggerations of mine.
You can't accuse individuals who are at least striving for some kind of holiness with the eccentricities of their class. So when we see drunken gays parading around in g-strings in public - how can we logically attibute this attitude or behavior to quiet living people in committed relationships (although same-sex).
This kind of commitment necessarily precludes a "bath house life" for which homosexuals have been so properly castigated. The people who pursue this way of life are explicitly rejected, if I'm understanding it correctly, by your adoptive gay parents.
So I agree completely with the impossibility of imputing generalizations, no matter how well founded, on individuals who may completely defy the expectations those generalizations engender. To ascribe, in contravention to the gay lifesyle, those behaviors which by your definition, these particular gay people have disavowed, is illogical.
So I will address the gay members of your congregation, who forge life-lasting committed relationships, and as same-sex couples adopt children in a admirable and well-intentioned self-abnegation, not as horrible animals who need to be extricated from the body politic, or as misfits who threaten the well-being or even the existence of social commity, thusly:
I thank you for overcoming the proclivities of your class. You have established a valid claim for the respect of your neighbors by overcoming both social and hereditary disadvantages, to do real good for yourselves and for others. And besides this, you have followed to the best of your ability and according to the dictates of your conscience, the teachings of your Savior and the law of love.
I ask you now to consider going beyond the unquestioned good you have already accomplished, to pursue a higher level of holiness, a deeper self-awareness, and a more perfect chastity. Not that your journey thus far has left you bereft of virtue or holiness, but that there is still, far more to accomplish - if you dare!
At that point I would explain about chastity, a much maligned and little understood virtue in our day. If your friends are as Christ-motivated as you insist, they would go for it. After all, I'm assuming yours is a "titheing" congregation. The tithe is the toe, chastity is the bath of love.
Once again, Michael, I thank you for clarifying this often contentious issue.
7.1.2011 | 7:51pm
Matt B says:
Fr. Bryan,
I thank you for your clearly articulated and cogent explanation of Catholic teaching on the subject of marital relations. Would that every priest were similarly equipped - and disposed - to wield this sword of truth.
As a married person I confirm the beauty and cogency of these teachings. Like every Christian doctrine, they bring light and life. May all come to understand this.
I pray for your vocation, Father, and for the consummation of love in the world to come. Please remember that the world needs you - we need you. Never fear; never doubt!
I thank you for your clearly articulated and cogent explanation of Catholic teaching on the subject of marital relations. Would that every priest were similarly equipped - and disposed - to wield this sword of truth.
As a married person I confirm the beauty and cogency of these teachings. Like every Christian doctrine, they bring light and life. May all come to understand this.
I pray for your vocation, Father, and for the consummation of love in the world to come. Please remember that the world needs you - we need you. Never fear; never doubt!
7.2.2011 | 2:05pm
Michael says:
Fr. Bryan,
You're welcome, and thanks for your blessing. I need it!
I can respond more fully on Tuesday, but I have to dash now. Now that I reread your earlier post, I see that you were talking about a prolapsed rectum. Do homosexual acts lead to any other concrete harms for either men or women, or is homosexuality different from the other sins on Paul's list?
I have more to say about marital acts, but that will have to wait.
---
Matt B,
You're welcome. I appreciate it. Again, I can say more on Tuesday, but I will ask now what exactly you mean by saying "proclivities of your class" and "social and heriditary disadvantages"? These statements seem to imply that homosexuals are somehow, perhaps naturally, driven toward other sins. Am I understanding you correctly?
You're welcome, and thanks for your blessing. I need it!
I can respond more fully on Tuesday, but I have to dash now. Now that I reread your earlier post, I see that you were talking about a prolapsed rectum. Do homosexual acts lead to any other concrete harms for either men or women, or is homosexuality different from the other sins on Paul's list?
I have more to say about marital acts, but that will have to wait.
---
Matt B,
You're welcome. I appreciate it. Again, I can say more on Tuesday, but I will ask now what exactly you mean by saying "proclivities of your class" and "social and heriditary disadvantages"? These statements seem to imply that homosexuals are somehow, perhaps naturally, driven toward other sins. Am I understanding you correctly?
7.5.2011 | 10:28am
Fr. Hans Jacobse says:
Joe,
Be careful about the hope in grand kids. The only way they will prevail is if we do our work now, by which I mean being able to withstand the scorn of speaking for the truth. If we don't do it, then they will have no well from which to draw.
I don't anticipate we will see much change in our lifetime. I believe however, that if we work hard now, things can and may change for them (call it prophetic intuition if you want). We can't and must not judge our work by whether or not it is accepted, but only if conforms to the tradition that we have been handed.
Be careful about the hope in grand kids. The only way they will prevail is if we do our work now, by which I mean being able to withstand the scorn of speaking for the truth. If we don't do it, then they will have no well from which to draw.
I don't anticipate we will see much change in our lifetime. I believe however, that if we work hard now, things can and may change for them (call it prophetic intuition if you want). We can't and must not judge our work by whether or not it is accepted, but only if conforms to the tradition that we have been handed.
7.5.2011 | 5:05pm
Elizabeth says:
Michael says: "Why can't this question be answered in a noncircular way and without appealing to authority?" (Why are homosexual acts sinful?)
Are you saying here "without God's authority?".
Throughout the Scriptures you will find the celebration of marriage between a man and a woman, in both Old Testament and New. In Genesis we are told that the fact that God created man male and female reflects an image of God.
"God created man in his image,
in the divine image he created him;
male and female he created them.
and in the next sentence he tells them to be fertile and multiply.
Later in Genesis God says: "It is not good for man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him."
"when he brought her to the man, the man said:
"This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh;.....
That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body."
Jesus refers to this passage in Matthew 19
"Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female....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."
Sex is a gift from God given for the purpose he ordained. He is the Creator we are the creatures. He has made the rules, which are based on the Truth about the nature of God and the nature of human beings created in His image and likeness.
In the beginning when Eve was tempted to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil." The Devil tempted her by saying that if she ate of it she would be like God. How? By being able to decide for herself what was good and what was evil, without reference to God. God said don't do it, but it felt good so she did it anyway. And that has been man's temptation ever since.
Homosexual acts are sinful beause they pervert the meaning of sex as given by God, which includes being open to life. All homosexual acts are sterile, they cannot give new life.
You ask about consequences for homosexuals besides the one that Father mentioned, I think you will find that homosexuals are more likely to get cancer of the rectum also, and infections.
Leaving God out of the equation, the rectum was never designed for sexual activity, the lining is too fragile, and even from a hygienic point of view it's wrong.
Modern man who rejects God doesn't take kindly to limitations: "You can be what you want to be, you can create your own reality." But only up to a point.
We aren't disembodied spirits, and for Christians our bodies are a gift from God, and we are meant to use them in the way he has ordained. It was through the death of his body on the Cross that Christ redeemed the world. Bodies are important.
Christianity is the religion of the Incarnation.
Are you saying here "without God's authority?".
Throughout the Scriptures you will find the celebration of marriage between a man and a woman, in both Old Testament and New. In Genesis we are told that the fact that God created man male and female reflects an image of God.
"God created man in his image,
in the divine image he created him;
male and female he created them.
and in the next sentence he tells them to be fertile and multiply.
Later in Genesis God says: "It is not good for man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him."
"when he brought her to the man, the man said:
"This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh;.....
That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body."
Jesus refers to this passage in Matthew 19
"Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female....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."
Sex is a gift from God given for the purpose he ordained. He is the Creator we are the creatures. He has made the rules, which are based on the Truth about the nature of God and the nature of human beings created in His image and likeness.
In the beginning when Eve was tempted to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil." The Devil tempted her by saying that if she ate of it she would be like God. How? By being able to decide for herself what was good and what was evil, without reference to God. God said don't do it, but it felt good so she did it anyway. And that has been man's temptation ever since.
Homosexual acts are sinful beause they pervert the meaning of sex as given by God, which includes being open to life. All homosexual acts are sterile, they cannot give new life.
You ask about consequences for homosexuals besides the one that Father mentioned, I think you will find that homosexuals are more likely to get cancer of the rectum also, and infections.
Leaving God out of the equation, the rectum was never designed for sexual activity, the lining is too fragile, and even from a hygienic point of view it's wrong.
Modern man who rejects God doesn't take kindly to limitations: "You can be what you want to be, you can create your own reality." But only up to a point.
We aren't disembodied spirits, and for Christians our bodies are a gift from God, and we are meant to use them in the way he has ordained. It was through the death of his body on the Cross that Christ redeemed the world. Bodies are important.
Christianity is the religion of the Incarnation.
7.7.2011 | 7:36am
Michael says:
Fr. Bryan,
You’re right that anal sex is an especially dangerous practice, but it can be practiced responsibly. The NIH reports that one third of gay men don’t practice it at all, and most practice other forms of sex more often. Lesbians, of course, practice anal sex much less often. So again, I’m left with the question of whether there are any concrete harms in homosexuality. Whenever people do offer concrete harms, they apply to men, not women.
You said, “Because you are embodied, intercourse is needed for you and your wife to truly unite as persons. To say that you don't would, in my mind, be a step towards dualism. That could wind up being very destructive.”
I’m not sure what you mean by destructive, what is being destroyed and how. But my experience is also that intercourse is not required to “truly unite.” The union my wife and I have experienced is far more psychological and spiritual than it is physical, and while that psychological and spiritual union requires the physical, it doesn’t seem to require any particular use of the physical. That is, orgasm is more important than intercourse, and context, situation, dialogue, and psychic space are more important than orgasm.
I’m not sure whether you’re suggesting that some acts are inherently “demeaning.” I don’t think they are. Intimacy comes about in many different ways.
I understand the line you’re trying to draw between marriage and friendship, but the homosexual relationships I’ve seen in and outside my church go far beyond friendship. They have the intimacy and the long-term commitment that resembles marriage far more than friendship. These are deeply shared lives.
---
Matt B,
I’m not sure what exactly your response is trying to do. On the one hand, you seem to be denying stereotypes and on the other reinforcing them. If we’re going to praise gay Christians for rising above the “proclivities of their class,” we might as well praise young Christians for rising above the proclivities of their class as seen on spring break or male Christians as see in bachelor parties or female Christians as seen at the mall.
At the end of your response, you call homosexuals to chastity, but I wonder whether you realize how new that call is. Previous generations of Christians, including Paul’s, would have called for heterosexual marriage because they believed that homosexuality was like adultery, drunkenness, or theft—things you could simply stop doing and thus get back on the right path. We know now that homosexuality is different, that to give it up is to stop the practice, not to stop the desire. In First Corinthians, Paul urges all unmarried Christians to embrace chastity, but for those who can’t, they should live upright married lives. I don’t know why it would be different for homosexuals.
---
Elizabeth,
Let me know if reading through my posts hasn’t clarified the questions I’ve raised.
You’re right that anal sex is an especially dangerous practice, but it can be practiced responsibly. The NIH reports that one third of gay men don’t practice it at all, and most practice other forms of sex more often. Lesbians, of course, practice anal sex much less often. So again, I’m left with the question of whether there are any concrete harms in homosexuality. Whenever people do offer concrete harms, they apply to men, not women.
You said, “Because you are embodied, intercourse is needed for you and your wife to truly unite as persons. To say that you don't would, in my mind, be a step towards dualism. That could wind up being very destructive.”
I’m not sure what you mean by destructive, what is being destroyed and how. But my experience is also that intercourse is not required to “truly unite.” The union my wife and I have experienced is far more psychological and spiritual than it is physical, and while that psychological and spiritual union requires the physical, it doesn’t seem to require any particular use of the physical. That is, orgasm is more important than intercourse, and context, situation, dialogue, and psychic space are more important than orgasm.
I’m not sure whether you’re suggesting that some acts are inherently “demeaning.” I don’t think they are. Intimacy comes about in many different ways.
I understand the line you’re trying to draw between marriage and friendship, but the homosexual relationships I’ve seen in and outside my church go far beyond friendship. They have the intimacy and the long-term commitment that resembles marriage far more than friendship. These are deeply shared lives.
---
Matt B,
I’m not sure what exactly your response is trying to do. On the one hand, you seem to be denying stereotypes and on the other reinforcing them. If we’re going to praise gay Christians for rising above the “proclivities of their class,” we might as well praise young Christians for rising above the proclivities of their class as seen on spring break or male Christians as see in bachelor parties or female Christians as seen at the mall.
At the end of your response, you call homosexuals to chastity, but I wonder whether you realize how new that call is. Previous generations of Christians, including Paul’s, would have called for heterosexual marriage because they believed that homosexuality was like adultery, drunkenness, or theft—things you could simply stop doing and thus get back on the right path. We know now that homosexuality is different, that to give it up is to stop the practice, not to stop the desire. In First Corinthians, Paul urges all unmarried Christians to embrace chastity, but for those who can’t, they should live upright married lives. I don’t know why it would be different for homosexuals.
---
Elizabeth,
Let me know if reading through my posts hasn’t clarified the questions I’ve raised.
7.7.2011 | 11:39am
Elizabeth says:
Michael, I think you are raising the wrong questions, I don't think they follow. Homosexuality keeps men and women from the purpose for which God designed them. That you might not see any harm, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Check out some of the studies that have been done. I've seen them but I can't give you any because I don't usually keep records of things like that. For me the fact that the Church from the beginning has called homosexuality a sin, which is confirmed by the Bible, natural law and common sense is enough.
A homosexual couple living together can have a lot of good in their relationship because friendship and love are given by God as good things, it's the sexual element that makes it wrong. Even the good can be perverted from its real meaning, and can look good on the surface. It isn't up to me to condemn them though as a fellow sinner, but I can say that certain actions are wrong. If you are interested to know more about why the Catholic Church says it's wrong look up: www.catholic.com they have a lot of info there.
A homosexual couple living together can have a lot of good in their relationship because friendship and love are given by God as good things, it's the sexual element that makes it wrong. Even the good can be perverted from its real meaning, and can look good on the surface. It isn't up to me to condemn them though as a fellow sinner, but I can say that certain actions are wrong. If you are interested to know more about why the Catholic Church says it's wrong look up: www.catholic.com they have a lot of info there.
7.7.2011 | 11:13pm
Michael says:
Elizabeth,
Most sins destroy our ability to live healthy, moral lives. They have concrete harms. To commit adultery, I have to take the love and intimacy I have with my wife and split it, pouring some of my energy and attention into another woman. To keep my wife in darkness about my affair, I have to start keeping secrets and lying about how I’m spending my time. However much I may love both women, my life is becoming a tissue of lies, deceit, and split energy. I might continue to be a good employee, citizen, and even churchgoer, but my lies will seep into these areas as well. My immorality in one area slowly infects the whole of my life.
The same is true about other sins—fornication, theft, slander, etc. These sins all have concrete harms.
The effects of some sins, however, are, as you mention, invisible. I may be a perfectly upright and moral person, but if I’m an idolater, if I fail to keep the Sabbath, or if I deny the Holy Spirit, then my relationship with God isn’t right. The effects are not visible, but the sin remains nonetheless. I may be able to live morally, but I cannot live right with God.
My question is pretty straightforward. Which category does homosexuality belong to? Does it have concrete harms like fornication and adultery? Or are its effects only invisible?
For most of our history, I think the answer was clear. Christians believed that committing homosexual acts had concrete harms, destroying the ability to live a healthy, moral life. Christians urged homosexuals to repent of their sin and choose marriage.
Beginning a hundred years ago or so, our understanding of homosexuality began to change. We began to realize that homosexuality was not a choice but a condition. Christians first responded by insisting that homosexuality still led to concrete harms, mental illness, promiscuity, and dissolution leading the list. But as homosexuals began to live more openly and as heterosexuals began to get to know homosexuals, people began to realize just how ordinary homosexuals are, how capable they are of living moral, healthy lives.
Christians now have to decide whether homosexuality is a sin like idolatry—a sin that prevents one from living right with God—or whether it is not a sin at all. My experience in a reconciling congregation that welcomes lesbians and gays to participate fully in the life of the church convinces me that homosexuality isn’t a sin. I’ve watched the church sustain their relationships, and my wife, children, and I have been sustained by their witness.
Most sins destroy our ability to live healthy, moral lives. They have concrete harms. To commit adultery, I have to take the love and intimacy I have with my wife and split it, pouring some of my energy and attention into another woman. To keep my wife in darkness about my affair, I have to start keeping secrets and lying about how I’m spending my time. However much I may love both women, my life is becoming a tissue of lies, deceit, and split energy. I might continue to be a good employee, citizen, and even churchgoer, but my lies will seep into these areas as well. My immorality in one area slowly infects the whole of my life.
The same is true about other sins—fornication, theft, slander, etc. These sins all have concrete harms.
The effects of some sins, however, are, as you mention, invisible. I may be a perfectly upright and moral person, but if I’m an idolater, if I fail to keep the Sabbath, or if I deny the Holy Spirit, then my relationship with God isn’t right. The effects are not visible, but the sin remains nonetheless. I may be able to live morally, but I cannot live right with God.
My question is pretty straightforward. Which category does homosexuality belong to? Does it have concrete harms like fornication and adultery? Or are its effects only invisible?
For most of our history, I think the answer was clear. Christians believed that committing homosexual acts had concrete harms, destroying the ability to live a healthy, moral life. Christians urged homosexuals to repent of their sin and choose marriage.
Beginning a hundred years ago or so, our understanding of homosexuality began to change. We began to realize that homosexuality was not a choice but a condition. Christians first responded by insisting that homosexuality still led to concrete harms, mental illness, promiscuity, and dissolution leading the list. But as homosexuals began to live more openly and as heterosexuals began to get to know homosexuals, people began to realize just how ordinary homosexuals are, how capable they are of living moral, healthy lives.
Christians now have to decide whether homosexuality is a sin like idolatry—a sin that prevents one from living right with God—or whether it is not a sin at all. My experience in a reconciling congregation that welcomes lesbians and gays to participate fully in the life of the church convinces me that homosexuality isn’t a sin. I’ve watched the church sustain their relationships, and my wife, children, and I have been sustained by their witness.
7.16.2011 | 10:26am
Pamela says:
It's always presented as a matter of 'rights'. The fact is, most rights infringe on others. Does my right to breath clean air trump someone else's right to smoke? Does my right to raise bees trump someone else's right to live in a quiet neighborhood? Someone (the courts, usually) have to decide whose 'rights' trump.
In the case of SSM, the rights they are asking for are infringing on many people's individual constitutional rights. Numerous examples exist of individuals right to the 'free exercise of religion' are being trampled as a result of laws protecting same sex couples. SSM needs to be fought to protect the Constitution.
whyimconservative.wordpress.com
In the case of SSM, the rights they are asking for are infringing on many people's individual constitutional rights. Numerous examples exist of individuals right to the 'free exercise of religion' are being trampled as a result of laws protecting same sex couples. SSM needs to be fought to protect the Constitution.
whyimconservative.wordpress.com
7.20.2011 | 4:56am
vesey says:
Michael: you said in your final paragraph that Christians had to decide the nature of the sinfulness of homosexuality and that you personally have become convinced that homosexuality is'nt a sin. The problem is that it being a sin or not is'nt your decision, it's Gods. Romans 1: 26 & 27 make it very clear how God feels. It IS a sin in his eyes and your unwillingness to accept that disqualifies you as a Christian. Jesus himself at Matthew 7;21 said " not everyone saying to me, 'Lord,Lord', will enter the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will". You can dance around those scriptures all you want Michael but they are clear and concise and are in the Bible to guide you and all of us in our relationship with God. The world today is in the mess it's in because so many people have decided for themselves what is right or wrong instead of leaving that decision to God. Hopefully you will let God be God and stop usurping His position by making your own rules. It's your decision, but remember what Jesus said in Matt 7:21..........
7.21.2011 | 4:16pm
Zen Bonobo says:
We have seen that outspoken defenders of Christian Orthodoxy have practiced creative ways to follow their vices and creative liaisons in ways to numerous to list here. No matter how sacrosanct the rules of Christian living become or how voluble the criticism of the ways of "those others" become, the pious will find ways to practice their "special secret ways" of living.
The faithful deacon will never be able to correct the ways of the advantage taking elder.
The faithful deacon will never be able to correct the ways of the advantage taking elder.
9.14.2011 | 8:51am
Patrick Narkinsky says:
The problem is that there is no "Christian" political party in America today, so voting requires an often agonizing choice between two evils. Do I vote for Obama, in the knowledge that he will nominate Supreme Court justices likely to continue the travesty of Rowe vs. Wade, or do I vote for McCain in the certain knowledge that he will continue the countries disastrous descent into plutocracy that began with the Reagan administration?
Let's be clear here: the Republican party is not the party of faith and morals! They are just using Christians by tossing us a bone in terms of social policy (which they don't really care about) in order to get our support on tax policy and business regulation and other policies that ultimately do great harm to 95% of the population -- not to mention their rabid support of the military-industrial complex and the wars of aggression it spawns.
I agree whole-heartedly that we as Christians should oppose the redefinition of marriage and the killing of babies. But we should also be against most wars, the death penalty, and government policies that hurt the poor. And by these measures the Republican party fails and fails badly.
So, give me a party that is actually "Christian" and I will become a partisan. Until then, I will have to make an agonizing choice on the basis of all the issues every election.
Let's be clear here: the Republican party is not the party of faith and morals! They are just using Christians by tossing us a bone in terms of social policy (which they don't really care about) in order to get our support on tax policy and business regulation and other policies that ultimately do great harm to 95% of the population -- not to mention their rabid support of the military-industrial complex and the wars of aggression it spawns.
I agree whole-heartedly that we as Christians should oppose the redefinition of marriage and the killing of babies. But we should also be against most wars, the death penalty, and government policies that hurt the poor. And by these measures the Republican party fails and fails badly.
So, give me a party that is actually "Christian" and I will become a partisan. Until then, I will have to make an agonizing choice on the basis of all the issues every election.
