Merry Christmas, Jesus' birthday, where Christians celebrate the incarnation of God as man which occured in history about 2006 years and 9 months ago today. The creator of the universe, who was almighty strength - became weakness. The perfect, sinless one - became Sin. For us. Please remember that every hipocrite, every sinning Christian, can't detract from the perfectness of God, they can only make one have problems of faith. They are a scandal - a stumbling block. Also remember, God is forgiveness, so that the only unforgivable sin is to not ask for forgiveness.Remember the kid in the manger...seek Him.
81 comments :
"either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy"
- The Pontifical Council for the Family, The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality: Guidelines for Education within the Family, 18
http://www.patersondiocese.org
/page.cfm?Web_ID=2018
Thanks for the advice, but if you encounter people who do not wish to follow your advice, are you entitiled to force your will upon them?
Certainly not, but neither are you as with the redefinition of marriage.
Why don't you explain how living by my own values inconveniences you in any way, let alone impedes your liberty.
We all have to right to live by our own values as long as we do not infringe on the rights of others, but we're talking about two things here;
1.) the redefinition of the public institution of marriage.
2.) the back room way in which it was accomplished.
Redefining marriage has multiple implications for society. Since Goodrich is based on the idea that the right to the pursuit of happiness includes the right to marry anyone of one's own choosing, individuals now have the right to marry their siblings, cousins, parents and aunts and uncles. As you can surmise, there have always been limits on civil marriage, but Goodrich made them all illegal, and you should educate society on what Goodrich hath wrought.
Because this is a civil right, anyone who objects to married siblings must still employ them, rent to them, and even allow them to teach in their schools. It is now illegal to discriminate against any married people, no matter who they are or how they were related before marriage.
Goodrich has also destroyed the limit of two in a marriage, because the right to the pursuit of happiness cannot be infringed.
You never needed to redefine marriage in order live by your own values. You have the right to privacy, the right to be left along, the right to vote, to associate with who you will, the right to give power of attorney to anyone you choose, the right to appoint executors of your estate, the right to will your property to anyone, all of the individual rights both of us have, either because we were endowed with them by our Creator, or they were granted to us by the Constitution. But neither one of us have the right to redefine marriage.
I'm sorry that you see my concern for the Constitution, and for the public institution of marriage, as an infringement on your rights, but it simply is not your right to redefine public institutions. There should have been much more debate on this redefinition, and all of it's implications laid out for individuals to weigh, and vote on. But your side choose the back door route - judicial activism with political arm twisting ini the back room. And we do not even have the right of a recall election on the bums.
When someone's own moral values go against the objective moral order or against the laws of nature, then those values are a serious impediment to the good order of a family or a society that is founded on the objective values which have as their author, The Creator, God.
Your words are eloquent, but how much of this can you prove. First off, you say marriage equality a re-definition. What's the big deal if it was re-defined? How does that harm you or anyone? This is my point. Your side of this argument has failed in it's responosibility to prove harm before there is an action to remove my right to marry.
Our system of justice, as cumbersome as it is, does provide some good foudations for law, provided they are not ignored. One of these foundations is due process. That means you have to have need before there is action.
Your points clearly communicate your distaste for these things, but they fail to provide an understanding of what harm this causes you. There are a lot of things people do I don't like, I can't just go around making laws to control them.
Be careful what you wish for. The guarrantees of freedom that are destroyed for me are destroyed for you too, and your prodigy. I have always thought that above all else, liberty was our most valuable heirloom, and that it's principle should always be defended.
Your rights are not harmed by limiting marriage to its traditional and historic definition, but marriage is harmed because now the Goodrich decision has said there are no limits to what marriage is, there is no objective definition anymore.
If I have a distaste for due process, why am I insisting that the Legislature follow the law by holding a vote - a vote designed to protect minority rights. I would argue that your side has a distaste for due process, because you were willing to use back door political deal making to achieve your goal - you wants results over and above following the Democratic process.
The act of creating a petition without first proving it's need is putting the cart before the horse. That is where due process begins to go astray.
I am curious; why are my post changed to say anonymous instead of John Hosty?
I do not feel personally threatened by the movement to include same-sex unions as legal marriages, nor do i really believe that heterosexual marriages would necessarily be injured or denigrated by such legal and societal acceptance.
But i don't think that's the point, either. The point is two-fold:
First, the establishment of monogamous, heterosexual unions is the very foundation of civilization as we know it. It isn't traditional marriage per se that stands to suffer if that foundational reality is forsaken; it is our civilization itself that may well implode as a result. Marriage is the foundation, the rest is superstructure. Marriage is the trunk of the tree; we're sitting on a branch, and some among us are busily sawing the branch that connects us to the trunk, saying "Don't worry; the tree won't fall!", and i agree, but that's not the point.
Secondly, marriage is what it is. The idea that a court or legislature or any legal body can redefine what marriage is would be analogous to an assembly of fleas redefining what does and does not constitute a dog. Whatever they decide, the dog will continue to be a dog. But fleas who have adopted an inaccurate definition may not do so well.
Jerry, you have a very articulate and well worded argument, but I have to question a couple of the points you make.
Am I to just assume that gay marriage will cause social chaos, or is there some sort of irrefutable proof that I can see so that I know I am not giving up my rights unnecessarily?
People use the term "redefinition" like it is a bad thing. We have had marriage redefined before to include interracial unions. Prior to Loving v. Virginia in 1967 anti-mesegenation laws were still in effect because "God put the people on different continents so that the races would not mix." As we proceed to understand ourselves and others more fully it is expected that our laws will need to adapt with us.
In other words, saying that we have to stick to an old definition for tradition's sake is just not a sound reason when we compare what it costs. I respect that you have your life and your beliefs, but your rights end where mine begin.
Thanks Jerry, excellent way of phrasing the situation.
John, I'm afraid that the standard you seek, irrefutable proof, will never be reached because you will refute whatever we say, however Jerry's analogy applies here: the irrefutable proof would be when the person sitting on the branch that they are sawing, hits the ground.
Short of the standard of irrefutable proof, there's a lot of statistical data showing that the only reason divorce is down in Scandinavia is because almost no one is getting married anymore, and this trend appears to coincide with the ramp up to their civil union laws. Worse, unmarried couples having their second child are not even marrying, whereas in the old days, a first child often prompted that step towards public, legal recognition of the couple's living arrangement. It's as if no one cares.
PS - John, not sure why your posts show as anonymous. I noticed it started before I updated to the new Google based blogger today. If I remember correctly, I think one of them actually showed you name for a short while.
I am more interested in debating this subject for its intellectual value than in simply arguing away all your points. I am more reasonable than you may think; try me.
BTW I had an awful time changing over to the new blogger too.
My guess John is that your posts under the old Blogger got changed to anonymous, probably due to the new Google Blooger login.
To John Hosty:
Your question about redefining marriage seems fair and honest to me, and i appreciate your kind words (and those of jayg) and thoughtful response.
The reason for my statement that monogamous, heterosexual marriage forming the foundation of civilization has much to do with the upbringing of children. (There are other factors as well, such as the domestication of men and the protection of women.)
From this it follows that the exclusion of inter-racial unions was always an artificial an unjust exclusion. The same cannot be said for the exclusion of non-heterosexual unions.
Racial distinctions are necessarily arbitrary and vague. But maleness and femaleness are of the essence. The very structure of the human body, and the subtleties and workings of the human psyche reflect this.
In any case, civilization is premised upon how we are built internally. I don't think it is possible for man to change the way he is built; therefore i believe it very unwise for society to try to reinvent, redefine, or ignore such essentials.
I do recognize that some folks say they feel that they are essentially different; that they are indeed wired differently than most internally. Not sharing in this experience, i suppose i cannot deny such convictions.
My Christian (Catholic) faith teaches me to treat ALL people with sensitivity and respect. I can also appreciate what a heavy cross it must be to have strong sexual urges and yearnings that vary from that of most folks. I have personally known some homosexual persons who have shared some of their angst with me. I always feel honored when another can so trust me, and i feel great admiration and respect for those with same-sex attractions who are bearing their crosses well.
This respect for individual homosexuals notwithstanding, same-sex unions still ought not be sanctioned by society, for the above reasons.
What would be called inter-racial couples have existed naturally for millennium, which is why sickle cell anemia is prevalent among Sicilians.
Perhaps you would have been more receptive to our efforts to keep marriage to its historical and traditional definition if we had been more understanding of you all as persons. Even if you don't accept our definitions and understanding, we still are called to understand the concept of carrying one's cross.
I have distanced myself from the Church because I have been made to feel unwanted, even though I was a member in good standing. I was a youth group leader that once helped when we brought our parish kids to see the Pope in 1993 at the Denver World Youth Day. I was a Eucharistic minister, and a third degree knight for the 4442 chapter of the Knights of Columbus. I have a firm understanding of religion.
It is my personal belief that God gives us issues like homosexuality to test our faith. This is a two edged sword, as it is not just gay people He tests, but also the rest of society's ability to follow His lessons of love when dealing with those who seem as sinners. The lack of love that has been shown to the gay community by the Christian groups stems from a lack of leadership right from the top. Clearly we are all called to be as brothers, and try not to judge each other, but that is difficult for people to do when they are afriad. They are afraid because they are told they should be, but I can assure you the gay community is just like any other group of people. We have our good and bad, and we should be judged as individuals, if at all.
Christ calls us to live in peace with those who are in diametric opposition to the teachings on the Bible. Rather than force Muslims or others that do not follow, Christ asks for Christians to be an example of His light. Love will show those who have not seen His path, and allows them to decide for themselves to follow. This happens at the other persons pace, and not the Christian's. Some take longer to see the value and come around, and good Christians should resist the urge to give up or not bother to try with those they personally deem someone else unworthy.
Christianity is a beautiful and loving religion, but Christians can be hurtful, judgemental, and hypocritical. I have a hard tme understanding how all the things I have done for my community, even my faith, can be swept aside, and I am labelled as unworthy because of something I have no power to control. If you were in my shoes you might feel hurt and misunderstood like I do. What can I do about it though when no one seems to want to listen?
I don't bring these things up in an attempt to be hurtful, but the hypocracy has to be addressed. So long as gay people are treated as "untermenschen" for who they are inherently, they will be rightfully indignant. God's law to love thy neighbor should never take a back seat to fear. I can forgive common citizens for not udnerstanding the bigger picture, and taking the higher road, but why have the leaders of the faith chosen not to lead through love?
Sorry for the tangent, but this is my cross. I try to understand, but I have failed. God once said that "When you do this for the least of my people, you have done this for me." Are gays beyond saving? Do people really think it is going to bring people to God the way they treat gays, or have they given up?
John, it is very much appreciated that you have been so open. This does enlighten very much why you think the way you do.
The following is said in the spirit of the Love of the Lord.
You speak of distancing yourself from the Church. Evidently you misunderstand the true meaning of "the Church". The Church is truly the Person of Christ and not the human make up alone. The Church is the Life of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit...coming to the people of God thru all the Sacraments. So in reality, you have said that you have now distance yourself from the Sacraments, or the Life of Christ, Who is Church.
Second....Religion is not following rules....it is a personal relationship with Chirst. It means being a disciple of Chirst. And Christ said that inorder to be His disciple one must accept His teaching and then one will know the turth and the truth will make you free.
Third...love must not be simply looked upon as caring for one another. The Lord said that if you love Me , you will keep my commandments. Hence true love is doing the Will of God and not the will or whim of our own making.
Fourth....Yes, John, I have to agree with you on the fact that..."Christians can be hurtful, judgemental, and hypocritical". Might I add that when this occurs, those individuals are not really Christians are they?
Respectfully, Richard
Hi John Hosty:
I have been reading your posts for a while now, and understand your positions. Can you tell me how you can get around scripture which forbids the act of homosexuality? Again , from reading your posts it seems you claim to be a Christian, if so, how do you get around church & scriptual authority?
Be well.
to jim g:
From what i've read (unless i've missed something), john hasn't confessed to homosexual acts. Nor should he to anyone but a priest or God. Your question, then, is clearly out of bounds.
to john hosty:
You have written that this is your cross. A very honest admission, and, like jayg, i commend your openness and honesty. And, yes, there is salvation for homosexuals, and room in our Father's house, as well.
Key here is your recognition of and acceptance of your cross in life. This is your path to holiness. Yes, i said holiness, which we are all called to pursue. And if and when you do fall into actual sin (homosexuality is not sin, but homosexual acts are), the you confess, agree again with God, and keep on trying for the perfection to which Jesus calls us to. It cannot be done without God's grace. It cannot be done without our perseverance.
You are not alone!
Perhaps i should moderate my last comment by saying this:
If your church is rejecting you or pushing you aside because you are a sinner, that church is itself in need of some repentance. None of us are worthy to stand within God's house. And, truth be told, we each have our secret and often embedded sins which hound us for years, decades, maybe for life.
But it occurs to me to add that there may be another side as well. Surely the homosexual act must be called what it is, a sin. The church or individual Christian who refuses to do so, or who even insists upon some 'right' to continue sinning, and makes this a matter of his essential identity and a basis for his interactions with others... well, there is serious need of repentance in such a case as well. We must as Christians agree with God that sin is sin.
Acknowledging sin, and carrying one's cross are essential. Let us all, sinners to a man, help and encourage and strengthen one another in pursuing this path to holiness. We are not alone!
Thanks for the clarification Jerry. I think one of the problems with same-sex marriage, besides being the last nail in the coffin of traditional marriage, is that for Catholics it would enshrine the sin. How can I say that? Because Catholics understand that marriage involves the marital act, indeed Canon law provides for the declaration of nullility for a marriage if a husband or wife is unable or unwilling to do this. Therefore, there can be no nuance, no 'don't ask don't tell' with same-sex marriage.
Good point. I hadn't thought of that particular connection before.
Regarding homosexual acts and sin, we have to remember that heterosexuals commit their fair share of sins. Many of which are actually the same sin....
I understand the topic is intense and I want to thank John for speaking with his idenity. I use my own real name on my blog, and I think it is necessary to do so in a civilize society. It is nice to speak face to face regarding this issue.
I wrote this in my blog, it is very emotional and I don't want to offend but I feel just like everyone else the need to speak up on their own behalf.
Here it goes...
As much as I understand there are personal investments other relationships have, that very well should have acknowledgment and benefit I have to drive home the argument that something changes dramatically in a heterosexual relationship when it opens itself to children when sexual activity occurs.
Women by design want commitment. I'm currently reading "Unprotected" by Anonymous M.D. . . . Many women like me thought we could be like the opposite sex, and enjoy sex without attachment. The reality our bodies fight this. When women engage in sexual activity, we create oxytocin. They same hormone that is created while in labor and when breastfeeding.
Oxytocin is our bonding agent.
Marriage is for us, because we need commitment if we open ourselves to having children. Even the most effective birth control has failure rates, other then abstinence so the possibility of children is always involved in the factor. Sadly most women are told have safe sex, and as the books says "there is no condom for the heart". We are confused. Depressed. Even have higher rates of suicide when we engage in sexual activity outside marriage.
Something caught my eye in the recent New Jersey decision. I saw NOW signs, from the National Organization of Women which said "equal marriage". I thought it was interesting after years of telling women that marriage was patriarchal and evil, it was now a right when gender wasn't an issue.
The reality is there is a difference between men and women. When women become sexually active, we become venerable and so do her children. Marriage is the language we use to protect her and her children.
Have all the benefits you would like, but no you may not marry your partner. You may not marry your partner, because it denies the procreative element that all men and women have when they properly engage in sexual relations.
Why is it so controversial to allow a man and woman to have a term for this most intimate relationship? Why do you attempt to adrongonize me? Homosexuals have no problem standing up for themselves, so guess what I’m standing up for me.
I’m a wife and mother and I don’t want government benefits. I want my husband and I to be recognized for who we are. We are married. We fit the definition of marriage, by our elements of being one man and one woman in a committed exclusive sexual relationship until natural death. This definition protects me and my children.
I didn’t marry for the benefits. I married because I love my husband, and I want to love him and he wants to love me in the most intimate way known to man in how we were designed as man and woman. Government could strike out all laws and benefits regarding the word marriage and I wouldn’t care for a moment. It is the definition of marriage that protects me, not the law.
........
I don't know if it is the post-partum depression hitting but a lot of this is just making ache inside. I feel wierd having to defend myself like this, but seriously I need to stand up for me. But this woman (me) needs her husband, I'm completely reliant on him if I wasn't my children and I would be destitute.
We need a society in which men and women fully understand the sacrifice that is made in marriage. A society that supports them when their sole job is to care and provide for your children, whether it be financial or compete devoted on demand care for them. Since chidlren for the great majority are created the old fashion way through sex, and not selected eugenics through egg and sperm donoation, children need their moms and their dads. Marriage keeps them whole.
Thank you, Renee, for the fascinating insights into the woman's perspective, and some of the organic premises.
For men, there seems to exist two distinct possibilities, corresponding roughly to the two biological propagation poles r and K. The 'r' strategy consists of dispersing his seed as widely and generously as opportunities allow. Should a woman attach herself to him, and clearly demonstrate that bond as you have described, the man may adopt the better strategy, become civilized, and put all his sexual energy into that one woman and her offspring, which he now recognizes confidently as his own. This patriarchal arrangement is perhaps the single most important dynamic that makes civilization work. It results in three wonderful effects:
1. The man is motivated to care for his children, since he now knows who they are.
2. The man is motivated to care for his wife, his guarantor of biological success.
3. The man is free to cooperate with other such 'house-bounds' (husbands), as comrades rather than as rivals, each man agreeing to limit himself to his woman, and not intrude upon the others'. This cooperative agreement makes the advances of civilization possible.
Our culture is drifting towards savagery. The key to turning back towards civilization would seem to involve embracing as a society this patriarchal arrangement of marriage.
Sorry I have needed to take a few days for myself.
Jim G, you asked me how I reconcile myself with the Bible. I am not proficent in reading ancient languages, but people who are have started to come forward and question whether or not the scriptures in fact have been altered throughout the years by those who transcribed them.
Take for example the story of Jesus saying, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." They have pretty much proven that was written in the border by a scribe, then later added in by another scribe, who may not have even known that the text was not original. There are several books out there that have many interesting questions, and the credentials of the authors are impecable.
I believe Jesus told us to love one another, so judging me is not one of your responsabilities.
Jerry, I am not sure I believe that homosexual sex is a sin, or even wrong. This sin is listed along with not eating pork in Leviticus. Why is one so important, yet another in the same text so unimportant?
Renee, there are a lot of views and ways of life that you are going to come across that you will be against. What makes my life decisions so dangerous to you that you need to keep me from living those choices? I believe my rights end where yours begin, and conversely.
I don't see why anyone feels compelled to prevent me from making my own mistakes and suffering the consequences of my actions. God did not give us all free will just so that those who feel morally superior can impose their will upon a minority.
My God calls me to love and to be the best person I can. I am not called to judge my fellow man, but to be a brother, and to let the tiny flame Christ lit inside me to be seen.
Please watch this video from 60 minutes so I can have your input as to it's validity:
http://www.borndifferent.org/play_movie.php?form_name=60minutes
John,
The question of whether the Scriptures have been altered is an important one because if they have been altered in any considerable way, then they are not only unreliable, but they would not be the word of God. And the question remains; what do you believe in and why?
But consider this: Until 1947, the only known, full, extant copy of the book of Isaiah was from about the year 1000 AD - about 4 years before Hakim desecrated the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, 54 years before the full schism between the Roman West Church and the Orthodox East Church, and 99 years before the 1st Crusade.
Your theory is based on that old telephone game we played in class, someone whispered a phrase to one of the students in the front, who whispered/repeated to the student behind or across from them, and so on until the last person got the phrase and repeated it back to the class, totally mangled and bordering on the incoherent. In one simple way, the Bible would have to border on the incoherent for this to indicate that kind of alteration from repetition.
In 1948 the Dead Sea Scrolls were found - a veritable time capsule from 67AD, because these scrolls were stashed in a cave in anticipation of the coming Roman invasion, with the destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem in 70AD (which is why Judaism is no longer a priestly religion with sacrifice, but only a rabbinic teaching religion).
The full copy of Isaiah that was among the Dead Sea Scrolls is essentially (outside of a few prepositional changes (e.g. 'of' -> 'to') an exact copy of the only known Isaiah from 1000AD. I submit this proves that these scribes could go almost 1000 years without altering the text, and it indicates a superhuman reverence for these texts that prevented alteration.
This is completely different from an alleged possible addition of a phrase that is consistent with the rest of the text, or the insertion of of the complete story though the story is consistent with the life of Jesus. The text you cite, on the adulterous woman from John8:1-11, is actually missing from many copies of codices. St. Augustine argued that many copyists suppressed this passage because they thought it showed Jesus as too merciful and this would lead to a relaxation of moral rules (De coniugiis adulterinis, 2,6). This passage is in the Vulgate of St. Jerome, and it was included in all Church pronouncements of what the Canon of the New Testament consisted of.
A question couched in legal terms is put to Jesus in Jn8, but He replies by raising the question to the moral plane, because it is the moral plane that is the foundation of the Law. “He does not violate the law, St. Augustine says, and at the same time He does not want to lose what he is seeking – for He has come to save that which was lost:” St. Augustine writes that this woman actually had fear at Jesus' words, because she understood that He actually could punish her, because He was the only one there without sin. But the Lord replied, “Go and sin no more.”
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701033.htm
John,
Why are you in such a campaign to neuter marriage, the removal of all disitinctions male and female from a word will not make you content. Are that self-destuctive that you won't give heterosexuals their own term to describe the unquie properties of their relationship? To have no word to keep father and mother together to protect their own fruits (children).
You talk a lot about not judging but I see a lot of your posts over the Internet. Take a moment and reflect. How desperate are to validate your actions a man with same-sex attraction, by taking the only safety net I have as a mother of a four year old, two tear old, and nine week old new born which is her husband's trust through marriage?
I'm the vulnerable one and you a man with no interest in being open to children through sexual activity twist it around point fingers and cry victim with any oppotunity you have.
Just because you have same-sex attraction doesn't make you any less of a man, so I have to ask what type of man disregards a woman's situation before himself. Sure you campaign to neuter marriage isn't a physical assault on me, but you definitely aim to make direct hit to create a society where I'm worthless.
As a Catholic I have an absolute duty not to allow others to condemn themselves. I simply can not stay silent if someone is harming themselves through sin. Jesus Christ and His Chirch cares for all human beings, including you so I'm sorry if you have been mislead on the teachings.
Peace Renee
The Catholic Religion is older than the New Testament, yet Christians found a way to follow Christ's will without it being written. Your heart can tell you when something is wrong if you listen. God is with all of us, and when love is involved He is there. You can approach any situation through love and see His will at work.
"Your theory is based on that old telephone game..."
It's not my theory. Like I said, I am not a theologian or history professor, but the books and the sources can be cited. I will bother if you intend on reading them. The truth is there are as many as five thousand different versions of the Bible in print today, and each one is ironically a written example of the telephone game you accuse me of. You can site any passage and your version of the Bible, and I will guarrantee most times the text will be different in different versions. This lends itself to the question, "If any of this is changed in any way, how can a trust the important parts to be true?" I think this is a reasonably logical conclusion.
Renee, I can see you have very strong feelings against gay people, and maybe me personally. While I don't agree with what you have to say, I defend your equal ability to do so. Equality and liberty are some of the founding principles of this country, and they should not be subject to a might makes right popular vote because they are meant to be inalienable rights.
I see all people as equals, and I have the same obligation to you as I do to any stranger. If you were hurt, I would try to help. As for us, we are equals and don't owe each other anything.
Americans value highly their freedom of religion, so for me to try and tell you how to live your life is against what I believe. Why do you feel it's OK to force what you want upon me?
You should also ask yourself why you don't question how the church still does not allow female priests. Are you not as worthy as I simply because you are female? Is that a good enough answer for you?
I asked people to view the video from 60 minutes and gave a link to it. Did anyone bother? There are truths there I want to see your answers to.
Silo the penguin stopped being gay in early 2005, not that we should model human behavior after animal behavior.
There are not 5000 copies of the Bible, there are over 5000 texts, which makes the Bible the most documented document in the history of Mankind, with the ability to cross reference texts in Greek, Syriac, Latin, and even Hebrew for much of the Old Testament. There may be a lot of interpretations, but the texts are pretty consistent.
A priest offers sacrifice, and throughout history, priestesses were pagan, never Jewish or Christian. The Levitical priesthood of Israel was exclusively male, as was the New Testament priesthood of Jesus in the order of Melchisedec. However, Deborah was one of the Judges of ancient Israel, and Catholics have 4 Doctors of the Church who are women, including St. Catherine of Sienna, and St. Therese of Lisieux. The highest position in the Church ("our tainted Nature's solitary boast") the person given the most highest honor (hyper-dulia, not worship/latria) is the Blessed Virgin.
Finally, Renee has only stated that she has very strong feelings about marriage and children, she has said nothing against gay people. You inferred that. You took offense, though none was given.
Silo the penguin is a very interesting case that we should study carefully in order to make sure we understand fully what has happened.
Many animals in the world have homosexuals in their midst, so the origin cannot be one of sin without saying there are evil penguins, and frankly that sounds ridiculous.
Ancient scholars once tried to tell the Church that the world was not flat, but the Church did not want to hear that it was wrong. Rather than accept the truth we know today, they punished those who didn't believe the Earth was the center of the Universe like they said it was. This is a historical truth, I am sure you'll not care to contest.
I thank you for pointing out that I used the incorrect word, and said that there were 5,000 copies of the Bible, and not 5,000 versions. I am sure that confused many people, and was worth correcting. The point however, was that there are different wordings used in each different version, and over the years omissions and additions have likley occurred.
Let's pick at random a passage; Luke 5:13 is our example. I do not remember what that passage is, so it will be a blind test of accuracy. Here goes:
Luke 5:13 (New International Version)
"13Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!" And immediately the leprosy left him."
Luke 5:13 (King James Version)
13And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him.
Luke 5:13 (New King James Version)
13 Then He put out His hand and touched him, saying, “I am willing; be cleansed.” Immediately the leprosy left him.
Luke 5:13 (21st Century King James Version)
13And He put forth His hand and touched him, saying, "I will; be thou clean." And immediately the leprosy departed from him.
The essence of this passage seems unchanged, but it is undeniable that they are not exactly the same in wording. Like I said, it begs the question of what else could have been changed. Either you question what you see, or you don't.
I think you attempted to explain why women aren't allowed to be priests, bishops, carnidinals, or the Pope, but I didn't really follow you. I am sure there must be a very logical explanation why no woman on Earth can ever lead in these ways. I am all ears, so educate me on the value of this position.
Some exsurpts from what Renee said to me:
"Why are you in such a campaign to neuter marriage"
"Are that self-destuctive..."
" ...to protect their own fruits (children)."
"How desperate..."
"by taking the only safety net..."
"I'm the vulnerable one..."
"...twist it around point fingers and cry victim..."
" ...what type of man disregards a woman's situation..."
"...campaign to neuter marriage..."
"...create a society where I'm worthless."
You're right Jay, I guess she said nothing offensive... ;)
Oh, I almost forgot. How did you like the video 60 minutes did about possible causes of being gay? Here is the link again in case you missed it:
http://www.borndifferent.org/play_movie.php?form_name=60minutes
John H,
You’ve been in my prayers and I’ve been thinking. I knew exactly how you were going to respond making the claim I was attacking you in which I was not. I’m was only telling you that your campaign was in reality attacking me, a mother with children. You are attacking me and I have to stand up for my family. Are you saying I don’t have a right to defend myself and my children?
We really really do love you and God loves you and does His Church. Not only can I not allow you to hurt me, and I can stand allow you to hurt yourself anymore. You’ve inspired me to write my last two posts of my blog, I dedicate them to you. Here are some quotes…
Marriage is something law will never grasp, you can’t legislate the most intimate act between a man and a woman or the bond between them. All a man and a woman have is each others word to honor one another completely, especially regarding their sexuality and any creation of children from the marital act. The institution has been under immense pressure to not exist at all, since its definition is very well sexist (not homophobic) in nature defining a man and woman by their sexual organs.
As a Catholic, I believe sex (coitus) with no artificial impediments is the outward sign of marriage, and any other sexual like act is inferior and goes against natural law since it denies the complete union, honor and respect of what man and woman are. To dishonor and disrespect the body is sin….
Many persons with same-sex attraction have been mislead regarding the teachings of the Church. They are told that we hate them, and that there is no room at the God’s table for them. Many heterosexuals who endorse homosexual behavior, merely agree with it to deny their own sexual sins. We (as in heterosexuals) engage in sexual behavior just as sinful.
Honestly I don't know from my frame of reference what it is like to have same-sex attraction, but the people of Courage do know. So if you have any concerns regarding same-sex attraction they have the answers that I can not offer. I can't tell you that homosexual behavior is ok, just as I can’t heterosexuals that much of their sexual behavior is just fine because they are consenting to the act. Two people doing something wrong, instead of one doesn’t make it right. I can't allow that; because that would be leading people into sin and I don't want condemn people to sin. I don't get "holier" by doing nothing and letting people sin because I fear that they will call me some uncharitable names such as being judgmental.
There are no evil animals, though the lion can't lie down with the lamb (without eating him) because the world is broken. Animals neither make wine, nor get drunk and obnoxious, they neither create great art, nor create pornography. I do think there are physical limits to how animals might express their homosexual desires, if indeed they are homosexual as understood by humans, and this would be the basis for the label 'unnatural'.
The young twins who behave so differently might be interesting to study, but I think the first conclusion would be this behavior is not genetic. I understand that there is very little evidence that gayness is genetic, though the media seem to cling to the possibility. The closest they have come to claiming someone is "born gay" is not from some single or combination of genes, but from exposure to certain hormones in utero. Also, the "gay" mannerisms that were identified in the black and white outlines, I think are very difficult to determine if they are innate, or learned. The gays I have known had a certain ability to suppress these mannerisms, or enhance them, depending on who they were surrounded by and how comfortable they felt.
But some hard questions still remain, does a concern for our gay family members and friends necessitate that we must redefine marriage to accommodate them, and their feelings?
Renee, I can't think of any reason people would call you judgemental, other than the fact that you have said repetitiously that you need to defend yourself against me, although we've never even met, nor do you know me. By the way, you do use a lot of negative and suggestive adjectives when talking about me. Any fool can look at how you word yourself and see the true nature of your meaning. You can say you're not going to allow me to love who I do, but you have no control over me, nor I you. If you don't like homosexuality, say that. Don't try to paint an ugly picture of me; you're better than that.
I think the question boils down to one single thought. Unless someone can come forward with a solid argument how gay marriage impedes their liberties, why can't equality rule? The government that I pay my equal taxes to should represent me equally unless there is a valid reason. That reason cannot be religion or morality based in America. I have the equal right to live my life by my beliefs, and part of those beliefs is that God wants me to be gay and happy.
God bless you, John - you're still laboring under the illusion that our government can change the definition of marriage. Some legislatures and judges are intent on that very goal, futile as it may be. Marriage is what it is.
A mentally impaired person may also be convinced that the law of gravity doesn't apply to him. His attempts to act upon that conviction will not diminish the law of gravity, but may well diminish him. The same is true collectively. The society that tries to redefine marriage, the very foundation of civilization, does so to its own peril.
To repeat, i have no fear of gay unions per se. But i have no desire to witness the unravelling of our culture due to this ill advised attempt to pretend marriage is subject to the state's authority. Marriage is what it is.
Jerry, thanks for the post.
I don't think that I am deluded when I read that all men are created equal, and have the equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our government derives it's authority from all of us, in our collective agreement to be Americans. One of the things that is great about being American is having inalienable rights. If my inalienable right to marry who I want is going to be taken away from me, I think I am owed a darn good explantion, don't you?
You seem very concerned about gay marriage causing social downfall, but all the talk I hear about is always so global. Have you ever asked yourself exactly how my marriage to someone whom I have been in a monogamous relationship with since 1994 is specifically going to bring this fear into reality?
Walk me through the process of how this happens if you would. I am already living with who I consider a spouse, but I have not tied the knot yet, although in Massachusetts it is my equal right to do so. If you can prove to me how getting married is going to change things for the worse for anyone, I won't get married. I have an open mind and a caring heart. It is not in my nature to harm others for my own gain.
BTW, did you get a chance to see the video Jay saw about possible causes of homosexuality? It is from a non biased source; "60 Minutes".
"I have the equal right to live my life by my beliefs, and part of those beliefs is that God wants me to be gay and happy." (John Hosty)
One may live one's beliefs, but this is a choice, not a right.
And to make your self believe that God wants you to be gay and happy, is an affront to God.
I just now finished reading the following----it is a must read for all involved in this discussion----
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0001.html
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0001.html
for some resaon the complete url is not able to be shown---
after-homosexuality add---/ho0001.html
John - The document you cite, the Declaration of Independence, clearly recognizes that the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness derive not from the government nor from the collective will of the people, but from the Creator. That's what makes those rights inalienable; they cannot be altered by anyone. The point i have repeatedly tried to make is that neither you nor the state nor the collective will of the majority of people can change or reinvent reality.
Do what you will, John. What you are doing will never be marriage in any true sense. Your argument is not with me nor any government body, but with your Maker. And as the old pentecostal preacher said, John, your arms are too short to box with God!
Thank you Richard B. - the link you recommend says it all with the wisdom, grace, and tact that i so sorely lack.
Here is html code to link to the recommended page: click here.
Jerry,
Do not under-estimate yourself. You are doing a good job articulating your responses. They are kind and charitable and to the point.
As Jerry points out John, if our rights are from a socal contract, these rights are only as good as the contract, and can then be taken away when the contract is broken. If our rights are from our Creator, as the Declaration of Independence actually says, then they can never be taken away, never revoked, though in the course of events individuals and states may attempt to deny those inalienable rights.
So the real question is, does the right to happiness include the right to redefine the long held, historical and cultural understanding of marriage and allow for someone to marry another of the same sex or gender? To say the Mass. SJC says so is only a legalistic dodge, especially since the SJC cited no precendent, indeed no reason why the redefinition was just.
John, taking the 60 mins. video as a starting point, I would say that you are arguing that since a group of people may have been affected by a hormone in utero, this group of people now has a right to redefine a long standing cultural institution that provided THE stablizing effect on society which allowed much of human progress to take place.
Guys, our laws are from social contract and not God's will. As Americans, you are equally represented even if you do not believe in God at all, or have any other flavor of belief.
“As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.”
George Washington, 1790
By the way, Washington also said, "The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian Doctrine."
The reason the 60 Minutes piece is so important is because people rationalize how they treat gays on the idea they are sinners. If science proves they are born that way, then it is no longer a choice, but part of nature.
Even if it is a deviation in normal events, if it is not choice, it is not sin. If it is not choice, it is not sin.
People make an awfull lot of unqualified statements like they are fact, so I am going to start calling them out on it. Jay, where is your proof that marriage was the key factor in human progress?
Richard B., thanks for the scolding, but I have my equal right not to obey your will. The best you can hope for is my cooperation, and rather than try to talk to me as an equal, you tell me I am an affront to God?! Play nice or I won't talk to you. God calls for unconditional love, so what part of unconditional are you missing?
Clearly the best way to handle the issue of homosexuality is to teach and share what you believe. I draw the line when you start trying to make people follow your religion when they don't want to. If people bothered to love their neighbor first and foremost like God asked, we would not have half the troubles we have today.
"Monogamous marriage is by far the most effective foundation for a civilization. It provides most males an opportunity to mate (polygamous systems always result in surplus males that have no reproductive stake in society); it provides most females an opportunity to have a mate who is exclusively devoted to her. Those who are successful in mating are the ones who will have the strongest loyalty to the social order; so the system that provides reproductive success to the largest number is the system that will be most likely to keep a civilization alive.
Monogamy depends on the vast majority of society both openly and privately obeying the rules. Since the natural reproductive strategy for males is to mate with every likely female at every opportunity, males who are not restrained by social pressure and expectations will soon devolve into a sort of Clintonesque chaos, where every man takes what he can get."
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/
2004-02-15-1.html
There's more there, but I also might ask you John, where is your proof that you have a right to redefine marriage so that you can marry someone of the same sex? What makes you more privileged than us, since you already have the right to marry like we do? What is the legal priciple upon which your right to marry a man is based? How does this benefit Civilization? What is the basis for limiting marriage to two individuals once you blown away the concept that there must be two different genders?
John, you can try to make this out as discrimination, but it's more like you are venting a persecution complex as a way to avoid arguing on the facts. That's why you've labeled me homophobic, because you disagree with my points, and can't counter them cogently, or at all.
John Hosty,
It would be the height of pride for me to ask anyone to follow my will. Evidently, you cannot discern that what is being presented is the "Will" of The Maker.
Where did you ever get the notion that I want you to follow my religion?
And whoever said that America was founded on "Christian doctrine'?
Lastly, it is true that God's love is unlimited, but that is quite different in regards to being unconditional. He has made it very clear that for mankind to have His love is based on conditions. "If you love Me, you will keep My Commandments."
Jay, I read your single source in support of what you have to say about marriage. It is an opinion piece that has no research, and the journalist doesn't seem qualified in sociology, so I fail to understand how his opinions equate to facts. When I quote 60 Minutes at least you know there was legitimate research behind the conclusions. Try reading this from the Wall Street Journal:
http://volokh.com/posts/1162396316.shtml
"It would be the height of pride for me to ask anyone to follow my will. Evidently, you cannot discern that what is being presented is the "Will" of The Maker."
Until you can provide concrete proof to me that God does not want me to be gay and married to Ray, all I will see is your will to vote my equality out of the government.
"Where did you ever get the notion that I want you to follow my religion?"
I got that notion when people started saying they believed God wants them to make sure my equality is denied. When you enact laws that take away my freedom for the sake of what you believe, it is forcing your beliefs on me.
"And whoever said that America was founded on "Christian doctrine'?"
Many people from your side of this argument have made this direct accusation, and it is even implied in this very argument if you scroll up a little.
"Lastly, it is true that God's love is unlimited, but that is quite different in regards to being unconditional. He has made it very clear that for mankind to have His love is based on conditions. "If you love Me, you will keep My Commandments."
I keep the Commandments; don't be gay is not one of them.
Think long and hard about what you could be doing as a positive with this time you spend supporting a war against your gay brothers and sisters. Ask yourself why this focus has an entirely negative rather than loving approach, then remember the quote, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
The concrete proof ----
The Natural Law and Holy Scripture.
The most positive good anyone can do is always present the factual truth, not that which is distroted inorder to comply with one's subjective thought.
John, you have been accusing those of us who disagree with you of being unloving because we do not accept genital homosexuality as normative. Accepting all types of behavior without qualification is not love, but indifference. You are being offered more love here than you seem to realize; are you able to receive it?
It is the Sixth Commandment that is being offended against.
The "War" as you call it, is concerned with re-defining "marriage".
When Jesus answered the Pharisee's about marriage, He indicated, which because He is God really means He commanded, what marriage should be. Now forgive us for asking, but do you think anything in the Bible is the true word of God, and what do you think about the definition of marriage in Mt19?
19:4. Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and female? And he said:
19:5. For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.
19:6. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.
Richard b., Your answer to my question of proof is nothing more than a dismissal. I don't know what version of the Bible you have, but mine has the sixth commandment as "thou shalt not murder." I don't see how that relates to gay marriage.
Jerry, some words here have an edge to them, can you not see that? Walk a mile in my moccasins and think about how it feels to have so much negativity thrown at you. No, I don't feel the love, and I don't think anyone has gone out of the way to help me see it.
Jay, I am well versed, but this government is supposedly not to give favor to any one religion. The equal weight must be given to atheism, and that there is no God. Try explaining why gay marriage is wrong convincingly without using religion. Logic must be our light where we come from so many different backgrounds, yet expect to all be treated equally.
John,
The Books of Moses put no numbers on the Commandments; Catholics and some Lutherans combine the 1st and 2nd into one commandment about worship of God and no Idolatry, then separate out the 9th and 10th into coveting people and things, while the Anglicans and Helvetian Protestants separate out the 1st two commandments, and combine our 9th and 10th. Therefore Richard was actually referring to the Catholic 6th commandment, thou shalt not commit adultery.
Since Marriage domesticates men, protects women, and provides for the bearing and raising of children, it stands to reason there should be at least 1 man and 1 woman. That would flow from the Natural Law. Another, less discussed aspect of the Natural Law is that men and women "fit" together more naturally than a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.
Finally, if my second paragraph sounds like it has an edge to it, that was not my sole intention; but frank discussion of stark differences can't help but have an edge. It's the comments meant solely as insulting, derogatory, or inflammatory that are wrong.
Offenses against sexuality in Catholic teaching come under the Sixth Commandment.
If this is not acceptable for you, then clearly you must consider the homosexual life style as an offense against the First Commandment.
Of course you know this means that one must put one's will completely submissive to God's. You are now putting your will before God's
It is very clear that you have set yourself up as the official authority on Holy Scripture and sexual morality.
I know this is very difficult for you to believe, nevertheless, you have , by your words and action, lost discipleship with the Lord and that means, you have lost connection with the Truth. Hence the only truth you will discern is that which you conjure up in your own mind & will, sorry to say.
At this point, only the Lord will have the last say.
I now say, goodbye............
Words of truth and of love, if authentic, will often have an edge to them.
We can wax intellectually for years on this subject, and still not make any headway as people have done before us. I propose instead that we examine what is occurring, and why.
The gay community has gotten its voice and come out from the shadow of being afraid to be themselves. Prior to the recent past, gay people were afraid of violent attacks against them simply because of who they were, so most kept their lives secret. That's not the way for any American to have to live.
My trouble understanding your side stems from your ability to control my actions. Why do you feel you should have the right? Clearly if there is a God, He alone is fit to judge a man's heart, and not his fellow man. Not only does the Bible call you to love without condition, it warns about judging others. Why is the gay community an exception to all the rules?
In a country that supposedly values all beliefs equally, how can we have laws that curtail my ability to live by my beliefs unless we justify the need rationally?
From my very first comment, i have not tried to 'control' your life. I did indeed give sound reasons why homosexual marriage is both an oxymoron, and an assault upon the foundation of civilization. You have not refuted any of my arguments, but keep insisting that you have the right to impose your way of life upon society. You demand, not that others leave you in peace, but that they accept your chosen lifestyle (which is different than saying your perhaps involuntary internal makeup) as normative both socially and legally. Can you give sound reasons from common law why you ought to be allowed to reinvent the very basis of human civilization?
Christians are not called to love unconditionally (which looks alot like indifference), but to love as Jesus loves. At one point, John, i thought you were sincerely presenting your sexual desires as a cross. If you mean that, then Christian love demands that your brothers help you and encourage you to carry the cross well; that will be your path to holiness, as i said above.
But if you insist upon making this into a 'right'; if you refuse to agree with God that genital homosexual activity is sinful, then you are, like the Pharisees of Jesus' time, blind to your own faults, and are acting in a self-righteous manner. You cannot justify yourself nor your unjustifiable behavior before God. Anyway, if you insist upon acting like that, my duty as a Christian is to love you like Jesus loved the Pharisees, and rebuke you, in the hope that you may repent.
Jerry, very well said. The concern here is what life is all about, the salvation of souls. What greater love can a disciple of Christ have than directing our brothers and sisters to turn their life in the direction of salvation.....
I do not assault anyone by simply living by my own beliefs, and anyone who says to the contrary is lying.
Jerry, I respect that you have your right to believe what you will. I just don't accept your beliefs as truth, nor should I be forced to live by them like they were. I have responded to what you have said, you just didn't like my answer.
I do in fact see my sexuality as a cross to bear, but it seems we disagree why. My sexuality is a cross because I live in a time where people are intolerant and fearfull of gays. No one would ask to be born into such hardship, and my only relief from my pain was accepting who I am, or death. If my brothers and sisters in the Christian world were not busy judging me, maybe they would have been able to show me a little love, and then I would have seen more of what you want me to see. Instead what I see is a group of sinners in their own right willing to quickly label and condemn anyone who fits into their stereotype, no matter the person's achievements or character. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." What does that mean to you, and why does it not apply now?
My cross is also your own. God warned us about judging each other, and told us the most important thing to do is to love one another. This is not what is practiced in regards to the gay community. By judging me you become a sinner yourself.
Romans 14
The Weak and the Strong
Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. ne man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
OK, John, i originally thought you were agreeing with Christian teaching when you called homesexuality your cross. Please forgive my error.
I've reviewed all your comments in this post, and cannot find anywhere your answer to my question. Namely, you have not refuted the premise that marriage is the foundation of civilization as we know it, nor have you given any common law reasons why that foundational principle ought to be scrapped in order to accomodate your particular way of life. If i missed something, please restate it.
It is true that the Mosaic Law covers a lot of ground, from sexual behavior to dietary (kosher) regulations, and a great deal of other minutiae. In the passage you cite, Paul is declaring dietary regulations to be unimportant. But how exactly to discern the essential from the non-essential? There are at least 3 ways:
First, from the context of Leviticus itself, the major sexual sins - adultery, incest, sodomy, and bestiality - are seen to be major because they deserve capital punishment. No rules of kosher carried this kind of sentence.
Second, any good Jewish scholar will tell you that the laws of kosher and other minute details of the Law were seen as binding upon the Israelites alone. Sexual crimes were always seen as part of the older covenant with Noah as well as the later one with Moses, and as such were binding upon all mankind. (I'm giving you the Scriptural explanation here, if you do indeed accept the Bible as God's Word.)
Third, as you pointed out above, the New Covenant faith of the Church predates the writing of the New Testament part of the Bible. That does not mean that the early Christians were just winging it. They held to 'the Apostles' teaching' (Acts 2:42). It is this same apostolic authority which the Church claims today, in the persons of the Pope and bishops. This includes authority to interpret the Scripture, both Old and New, and to define what is and is not essential. Paul was likely using the reasoning of both the first and second reasons above to dismiss the laws of kosher, while unequivocally condemning sodomy elsewhere. He was also exercising his apostolic authority.
John, you seem to bear much anger toward the Church for your experience of being marginalized. As i stated above, the Christian who spurns his brother in Christ in is need of repentance. But that does not excuse you. Put your anger down, John, agree with God, and take up your cross in the Christian sense. That will be your path to holiness, and to true peace.
Jerry, you said:
"I've reviewed all your comments in this post, and cannot find anywhere your answer to my question. Namely, you have not refuted the premise that marriage is the foundation of civilization as we know it, nor have you given any common law reasons why that foundational principle ought to be scrapped in order to accomodate your particular way of life. If i missed something, please restate it."
I have stated that this country's laws are not founded on the Christian doctrine, and this comes from founders like George Washington himself. I have stated that because there is a seperation of church and state, one belief is not to be put into law over someone else's. When living in a multi-faith society all faiths have to be represented equally, or oppression occurs. My belief that God wants me to be happy and gay is my equal right in a society that promises equality to all. I should not have to suffer living under your moral code simply because you think it best, or you think God says so. I have shown that the Bible has been altered to argue that perhaps God's intent has been changed. How did you miss all this? I think what is more likely is what I accused in my last post; you don't like my answer. The bottom line is that we cannot have religious oppression written into law.
Romans 14 states very directly, "Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters."
I think that part is pretty clear, but then a metaphor for faith is used and I think it loses you. Faith is represented by food, and the person who eats all has the stronger faith; it's not about diet. The whole point of the passage is to tell people not to look down their noses at others they consider lesser Christians. If you don't understand it that way, ask your local theologian. It reinforces the thought directly by saying, "Who are you to judge someone else's servant?" I don't think the Bible gets too much clearer than this.
Lastly, I have never said I was angry. I am disappointed with my fellow Christians for not being able to love first and foremost, so I am trying to help them with their problem. Perhaps in time you will be able to see our conversations as other than an attack on your religion, and you will be able to see the truth of what I say. Thanks for trying to tell me what you think my path should be, but I follow God, and He is my light to follow.
Have you ever really put yourself in someone else's shoes? You should try it sometime; the experience is enlightening. My path is one of peace, and in peace I do God's will, whether I have your blessing or not. No man is my shepard, I answer to Him alone. If you wish to continue judging me, suffer the consequences He has for you, but I will not raise myself against you. I am not here to judge others, only to live in peace and spread God's love. Maybe you can explain why you have found other things more important?
John, you seem to want it both ways... You discredit the Bible as being altered so as to be unreliable, yet you like to quote from it when it suits your argument. You lament the way you are being treated by fellow Christians (your words), yet you seem to despise the Christian Faith.
Which is it, John? Are you my brother in Christ? If so, why complain that i'm not respecting your beliefs when i speak to you from that faith? That's all i have tried to do - take you at your word, that you have come from a deep life of faith, but have been wounded or insulted by people in the Church. You have said things to this effect above, so i try to call you to forgive those who have hurt you, and come back to the (sometimes disfunctional) family.
If you are not a brother in Christ, then let's have no more of your sloppy biblical eisegesis. I'm quite willing to debate the topic on legal and common law grounds, and leave religious arguments out of it.
As for who's attacking whom, remember that you are by definition on the offensive in trying to change a structure of society that has stood for thousands of years. Give me the common law justification for this new initiative. You still have not done so.
What marriage is, and what sodomy is, is not a disputable matter according to Jesus in Matthew chapter 19, according to St. Paul in Roman’s chapter 1, and according to Moses, and your attempt to show the Bible had been edited was actually feeble, because all the translations you posted had essentially the same meaning. If your faith is indeed weak, and not non-existent, then it is incumbent on us to inform you of the Truth. While Jesus warned us not to judge anyone’s soul, St. Paul reminded us that we have to make lesser judgments, the judgments of the world, all the time in 1Cor6, “And if the world shall be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?”
Debating you and acting within the political system to preserve the traditional understanding and definition of marriage as between one man and one woman is not even close to throwing large rocks at your head to kill you, nor is it even an eternal judgment of your soul (which we know is God’s job), and your suggestion that it is, is simply bombastic spin designed to end debate. Obviously we disagree. As Jerry so succinctly put it, let’s “debate the topic on legal and common law grounds” and avoid the “sloppy biblical eisegesis”
Jerry, I do not want it both ways. I ask that you consider the evidence that the Bible has been altered by offering you proof that different passages from different versions of the Bible to show the wording is not exact. I am sorry you can't seem to understand why that is significant. I quote other passages to you that suggest you should think first about love rather than my sins in an attempt to help you better understand what Christianity once was, and should be. It is painfull for people to hear they have fallen from God's path, and even more so when they hear it from someone they have no respect for. Your anger shows through although you try to choose your words carefully. I forgive you for it, and I love you anyway. It is not up to me to point out your sins, I only do so to try to help you see your hypocracy, but it seems you are not ready to admit that part of yourself. I will pray for your healing.
When I say that you do not respect my beliefs, I am talking as one American citizen to another, with the subject of religion aside. I must have not been clear on this as I can see you are confused. I have stated that religion and government have to be seperate entities when living in a multi-faith society, or oppression sets in.
We are both Christians, and therefore brothers. As a Christian I consider all men my brothers and women my sisters no matter their faith or circumstance. I can only suggest to you what road I think is best for you. We all have to choose our own paths, and answer for our actions to the Shepard, but not to one another. The only time you should consider limiting my liberties is when you can prove in a court of law that by practicing my beliefs I harm someone or their property. Even those here in Salem that worship the Pagan Gods have a spot at my table, for we are all equals. Brothers don't always agree as you might know...;)
"...let's have no more of your sloppy biblical eisegesis."
I would love to know what you consider "sloppy" after your misinterpretation of Romans 14 being about diet. Clearly you missed the meaning of the quote, and I tried to help you better understand it. There is no need to be insulting, you're better than that.
As for me being offensive; I guess that is also perspective. I see standing up for myself and my right to live by my beliefs as a defensive action against a lifetime of oppression. Elevating my rights to equal in no way diminishes your own, my equality is not an attack. I have had no one give me a logical reason how my rights even inconvenience them, let alone interfere with their rights. Care to cast some light on this?
Both you and Jay use religion and the Bible to defend your efforts against he gay community, so why do you want me to steer clear of the subject and stick to common law? If you use religion, I must answer from the same point.
Let love be your first and most important priority, then you will be doing God's will. Do not help me with the splinter in my eye when there is a log in your own. Having love in your heart first and foremost for your fellow man is more important than who I love. If we are to live together in peace you must learn to understand your place, and it is not your place to put your beliefs into law to prevent me from practicing my beliefs.
I should imagine it would be much more painful for people to hear that they are on God's path, when in fact they have fallen from it. In the long term.
I also think one should be careful not to craft religious precepts that conveniently fit their own will. And love is not telling someone only what they want to hear.
I don't think that I am crafting religious concepts, but rather I am offering a different interpretation of the same readings. I see an extreme concentration on the benefits and need for love, and I see many reminders not to be judgemental of each other. This is why I find these precepts more important than what has been said about homosexuality. Until we can figure out who is right, why can't you live by what you believe, and not try to stand in the way of me living by my beliefs? I have said from the begining of this thread that I will concede if you provide a solid argument as to why I should forgoe my equality. All I have heard in response to that is speculation of social harm, and scripture. Scripture is out since we live in a muti-faith society, and speculation should never be a basis for law.
I am no threat to you, my relationship to Ray poses you no harm, and unless you can show otherwise I, like many other gay people, now stand up for my rights. Just because it took the gay community until now to stand up for itself does not make their equality any less important than anyone else's.
I don't want to try to change or limit you in any way. In fact I want nothing more from you than to be left alone. It is likely our paths will never significantly cross, so I don't see your need to inject yourself into what I find important. I think that we can both live side by side with our own views on things and not interfere with each other's happiness.
John, the passage you cited from Romans 14 really is about people with religious scruples over dietary and other regulations. But that's not the point, is it?
You have talked much about being oppressed by the Church; can you give more specifics? You may actually find some sympathy in the Church and on this blog, if it's healing and forgiveness you want. You are ascribing anger where there is none. As a sinner myself, i only want to see a fellow sinner come back home. There is forgiveness of sins just for the asking; that's what Jesus died for. There is no remedy for self-justification.
When I pray, my heart tells me to have patience with those who fear or hate me. People act against me in greater and lesser degrees, but I try to keep my faith that through my goodness they will see Christ, not just a gay man.
I have laid all my cards on the table and given complete transparency with those here because shading the truth will not help us live in peace. It is important for us both to be happy, but not at each other's expense. If you can show me why my marrying Ray is at your expense, I am willing to listen.
Being gay is a single facet of my person, and does not define who I am. People should be judged by their actions and the content of their character.
In effecting the birth of this country we as many different people decided to make equality important; a priority even. I think we have realized as a nation that any form of discrimination is wrong, and harms the victim, the aggressor, and society. Some forms of discrimination have been harder for us to give up than others. Gay discrimination will be no different than the rest, but in time we will all be able to learn to live together without feeling like we are stepping on each other's toes.
John,
I think you've missed what we've been saying, we do not see you as wanting to be left alone, we see you as wanting to redefine the time-tested cultural institution of marriage. It's is not up to us to prove that your actions will do damage, it is up to you to prove that your re-definition has a logical and sound basis, is consistent with Constitutional legal principles, and won't unnecessarilly infringe others rights. But the basis of your argument is the pursuit of happiness. We don't agree that your right to pursue happiness includes the right to redefine marriage.
"we see you as wanting to redefine the time-tested cultural institution of marriage."
Your beliefs and my beliefs can co-exist without interefering with each other's liberties. You say my equality will cause a redefinition of marriage, but until you can base this fear in reality, it is an unfounded charge. You might as well call me a witch.
When I hear the tradition and definition arguments against gay marriage, it reminds me of how emotionally charged this issue is. People need to stop and realize that there is nothing I can do to change your beliefs, or from passing them on to others. I get to do the same though, and my rights should not be less because I don't believe what you do.
Gay marriage is already here, and to take that right away you need to provide proof of social harm, not the other way around. I am not guilty of destroying your idea of marriage until I can prove myself innocent; this is not how our justice system works.
The only thing I am guilty of is being different, and unwilling to conform just to please others. Diversity is healthy, and I will continue to stand up for my right to be an individual.
"If you can show me why my marrying Ray is at your expense, I am willing to listen."
To repeat: There are two fundamental responses to your statement:
1. Your marriage to Ray is an oxymoron. The definition of what marriage is is not merely nominative and subjective, but real and objective. Whatever you and Ray do, you are not married, by definition.
2. The expense or harm done is a diffuse harm, not to any particular individual or group. Civilization is built upon the institution of marriage. You will be just as adversely affected as anyone else by its erosion.
John,
The oxymoron of Gay marriage is only here because Chief Justice Marshall, who should have recused herself from voting on this due to her conflict of interest from her speaking engagements and involvement with GLBT Lobbying groups, voted for it. We never had a debate on this, not even in Massachusetts. The rest of the country recognizes this.
This does not change the validity of my legal right to marry who I have lived with and loved for the past 12 years.
Why is it people can't see the error of global, sweeping stereotyping? I am more masculine than most heterosexuals, and I am extremely private. If I am married to Ray or not, how would you even know? If you do not know, how can it cause you harm?
I think we can learn to live side by side without interfering with each other, you just don't want to. Unfortunately for you, this is America, and my civil rights are equal to yours. The fact that they have been surpressed for so long does not make them less equal.
Your Civil rights were equal to mine before the Goodrich decision. Goodrich was niche law.
"I am extremely private. If I am married to Ray or not, how would you even know?"
Marriage is not just a private agreement; it involves the creation of a new entity upon which the whole of civilized society is built. And wasn't your whole aim to have your 'marriage' recognized by society?
Jerry, Jay, I appreciate the fact that you have entertained this conversation. I fully expected to have the door slammed in my face a lot earlier than this. We are no longer trying to understand each other, but rather simply defending what we already believe. I am not here to attack your beliefs. It would be better if we could talk about what we could do to live more comfortably with each other. At this point I don't think there is anything I can say that is going to be listened to, so let me know if you want the dialog to continue or not.
John,
Certainly same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, a Civil Right, and that has implications for everyone, so we should continue to discuss and debate - something the SJC and Legislature did not do in this matter, but the rest of the Country has and is doing.
The comments may have to go under a newer post though.
Understood. I shall meet you on another thread and continue.
I've been thinking about this myself...
I agree with you, Jay, that this and other issues deserve to continue to be discussed openly and honestly.
But i also find myself agreeing with you, John, or at least asking the same question re. whether the three of us will likely say anything new to each other. I can likewise echo your sentiment about not having the door slammed shut, which i have also experienced. Perhaps that is a good reason for us to continue (on another post). I'm still kinda ambivalent, i guess.
At any rate, i concur that it may be time to close this particular thread. I may just pop into another thread, too. I won't promise one way or the other, and i intend no slight in any case.
Post a Comment