Coming soon to a billboard near you

[MonkeyTape]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1024571' date='Jul 14 2006, 02:45 PM']
You're in the NRA, eh?
[/quote]
I am a life member of the NRA, I wasn't aware that the Church had condemned lawful ownership of firearms.

[Like a Child]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1024724' date='Jul 14 2006, 03:05 PM']
These signs are ridiculous and disgusting.


It's ironic these people claim their pro-homosexual campaign is "Bible-based" because every time homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible, it is clearly condemned as a serious sin.
Liberals obviously don't even bother to read the Bible.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22).

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13).

"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel" (Deuteronomy 23:17)

(Not to mention the story of Sodom and Gommorrah in Genesis)
Not to repeat the whole gun-control debate here, but the NRA has a point that guns can be used in defense and protect lives.

To imply that Jesus or the Bible supports homosexuality is an out-and-out lie, though.
[/quote]


Here I go again getting myself in trouble. . .[b]Jesus[/b] never said homosexuality is a sin. In fact, there are lots of things he didn't say that Christians wholeheartedly believe in and attribute to Him. We are always trying to put words in His mouth (liberals included!!!). I cannot prove that Jesus would have condoned homosexuality. But neither can I prove that he condemned it. What I do know with certainty, however, is that the Gospel is chock-full of language about love. You can't miss it! That is its theme. As much as it might pain us to admit it, Jesus was in many ways a "radical." The guy was tenacious. He was constantly pushing the envelope on who was to be loved. He was always defying the expectations of the religious leaders of his time, and now, he is defying yours. Christ's love was boundless. The core of his message to us was this: to open our hearts and minds to God and our neighbor. (Whoever that neighbor might be!) To love the Lord with all our heart, our mind, our soul, and our strength, and to love our neighbor as ourself. It just doesn't seem like you folks love gays and lesbians. I know you will claim you do (love the sinner not the sin, yadda, yadda, yadda), but I don't buy it. It's really hard to love someone when you judge them so harshly.

A couple more points:

1. JESUS
I agree with Socrates in principle (although I wouldn't go so far as to use the word, "lie") that there is no direct evidence that Jesus supported the idea of homosexuality. However, I think one must take note of the intentionality of love imbued in the Gospels and Jesus' remarkable tendency towards radical inclusiveness.

2. THE OLD TESTAMENT
--I acknowledge that the Old Testament authors were demonstrably less than fond of homosexuality. However, with the coming of Christ things changed. To ward off an objection I know will come, of all the Gospel writers only Matthew (who, remember, was addressing a community of Jews and newbie Christians who were still very much committed to following the Law) stresses the Law. He tells us that Jesus said, ". . .one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (5:18). This makes sense. He was emphasizing continuity between the Old and New Covenants to his audience, because that's what they wanted to hear. Mark and John, however, in many ways [i]stress[/i] their new faith's radical departure from Jewish law. Paul does too, for that matter.

--Also, in regards to the Old Testament, it always seems silly to me to quote Leviticus. I mean this in all charity, Socrates; as I've told you on another thread, I value your wisdom. But seriously, if you are going to quote Leviticus to condemn homosexuality, you had better be consistent and follow all of the rules that Leviticus sets down. Meaning, you had better not trim your beard, sow two different kinds of seed in the same field, or do any number of the other things that oft-quoted Old Testament book proscribes.

3. PAUL
I agree that Paul appears to condemn homosexuality. However, we have to look closer at CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT. At the time that Paul wrote 1 Corinithians, he was no doubt aware of the widespread sinfulness and decadence found among the Romans. Many of the Romans (especially the wealthy) were indeed forincators, idolators, and adulterers, among other things. There was also a big problem at the time with wealthy men shaving, emmasculating, and having sexual relations with their male slaves or prostitutes. (Many Jewish and secular authors living at the time of Paul have confirmed this as has Protestant Theologian, Victor Paul Furnish, in his book entitled, [i]The Moral Teachings of Paul[/i].)

Our New American Bible translates 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 as follows: [i]Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. [/i] The actual words Paul uses are "malakoi" (which refers to weak and soft individuals, i.e., the "boy prostitues") and "arsenokoitai" (which refers to men who actively perform the primary male-on-male sex act, which I'm not sure I can really spell out in this forum). My point? Paul was condemning abusive, unequal, unhealthy sex ACTS between powerful men (pedophiles) and powerless boys. That is a far cry from condemning healthy, mature, equal, loving RELATIONSHIPS between two adult men.


Phew! I'm spent. But I'm ready for ya. What thinkest thee of all of the above?

[indescribable]

oh, sorry i didn't mean to imply that NRA members are also Confederate flag wearing people. in my high school, a majority of the self-proclaimed "hicks" wear confederate shirts, gun shirts, and big brass belts with both confederate flags and guns on a daily basis. its not to say that a majority or even half of the NRA supports such promotion of confederate pride, it was simply the impression i have from my high school.

i'm sorry if i've offended.

[peach_cube]

[quote name='Like a Child' post='1024830' date='Jul 14 2006, 09:13 PM']
Here I go again getting myself in trouble. . .[b]Jesus[/b] never said homosexuality is a sin. In fact, there are lots of things he didn't say that Christians wholeheartedly believe in and attribute to Him. We are always trying to put words in His mouth (liberals included!!!). I cannot prove that Jesus would have condoned homosexuality. But neither can I prove that he condemned it. What I do know with certainty, however, is that the Gospel is chock-full of language about love. You can't miss it! That is its theme. As much as it might pain us to admit it, Jesus was in many ways a "radical." The guy was tenacious. He was constantly pushing the envelope on who was to be loved. He was always defying the expectations of the religious leaders of his time, and now, he is defying yours. Christ's love was boundless. The core of his message to us was this: to open our hearts and minds to God and our neighbor. (Whoever that neighbor might be!) To love the Lord with all our heart, our mind, our soul, and our strength, and to love our neighbor as ourself. It just doesn't seem like you folks love gays and lesbians. I know you will claim you do (love the sinner not the sin, yadda, yadda, yadda), but I don't buy it. It's really hard to love someone when you judge them so harshly.

A couple more points:

1. JESUS
I agree with Socrates in principle (although I wouldn't go so far as to use the word, "lie") that there is no direct evidence that Jesus supported the idea of homosexuality. However, I think one must take note of the intentionality of love imbued in the Gospels and Jesus' remarkable tendency towards radical inclusiveness.

2. THE OLD TESTAMENT
--I acknowledge that the Old Testament authors were demonstrably less than fond of homosexuality. However, with the coming of Christ things changed. To ward off an objection I know will come, of all the Gospel writers only Matthew (who, remember, was addressing a community of Jews and newbie Christians who were still very much committed to following the Law) stresses the Law. He tells us that Jesus said, ". . .one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (5:18). This makes sense. He was emphasizing continuity between the Old and New Covenants to his audience, because that's what they wanted to hear. Mark and John, however, in many ways [i]stress[/i] their new faith's radical departure from Jewish law. Paul does too, for that matter.

--Also, in regards to the Old Testament, it always seems silly to me to quote Leviticus. I mean this in all charity, Socrates; as I've told you on another thread, I value your wisdom. But seriously, if you are going to quote Leviticus to condemn homosexuality, you had better be consistent and follow all of the rules that Leviticus sets down. Meaning, you had better not trim your beard, sow two different kinds of seed in the same field, or do any number of the other things that oft-quoted Old Testament book proscribes.

3. PAUL
I agree that Paul appears to condemn homosexuality. However, we have to look closer at CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT. At the time that Paul wrote 1 Corinithians, he was no doubt aware of the widespread sinfulness and decadence found among the Romans. Many of the Romans (especially the wealthy) were indeed forincators, idolators, and adulterers, among other things. There was also a big problem at the time with wealthy men shaving, emmasculating, and having sexual relations with their male slaves or prostitutes. (Many Jewish and secular authors living at the time of Paul have confirmed this as has Protestant Theologian, Victor Paul Furnish, in his book entitled, [i]The Moral Teachings of Paul[/i].)

Our New American Bible translates 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 as follows: [i]Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. [/i] The actual words Paul uses are "malakoi" (which refers to weak and soft individuals, i.e., the "boy prostitues") and "arsenokoitai" (which refers to men who actively perform the primary male-on-male sex act, which I'm not sure I can really spell out in this forum). My point? Paul was condemning abusive, unequal, unhealthy sex ACTS between powerful men (pedophiles) and powerless boys. That is a far cry from condemning healthy, mature, equal, loving RELATIONSHIPS between two adult men.
Phew! I'm spent. But I'm ready for ya. What thinkest thee of all of the above?
[/quote]

It's quite simple to me really.

1. Fornication is clearly a sin
2. Fornication would include sexual acts between any unmarried persons
3. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
4. Therefore, any sexual act not between a married couple is fornication.

It's not that difficult of concept, it is something that has been condemed by all Christians until recent history, even though various forms of fornication were prevalent in society.

[Like a Child]

[quote name='peach_cube' post='1024950' date='Jul 15 2006, 05:43 AM']
It's quite simple to me really.

1. Fornication is clearly a sin
2. Fornication would include sexual acts between any unmarried persons
3. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
4. Therefore, any sexual act not between a married couple is fornication.

It's not that difficult of concept, it is something that has been condemed by all Christians until recent history, even though various forms of fornication were prevalent in society.
[/quote]

I agree with all of your logic, peach. (What is that name all about anyway? I like it. . .I think.)

1. Fornication is clearly a sin. [i]YES![/i]
2. Fornication would include sexual acts between any unmarried persons. [i]YES![/i]
3. Marriage is between a man and a woman. [i]Yes, this is currently the case.[/i]
4. Any sexual act not between a married couple is fornication. [i]YES![/i]

Just like your logic, my solution is quite simple:

Allow gays and lesbians (who are equal to heterosexuals in EVERY way, are human beings with God-given and inalienable rights, and are NOT sinners just by virtue of who they are) to share in the Sacrament of Marriage with the rest of us. Problem solved!

As things are now, we are in essence forcing gays and lesbians to sin by denying them the Sacrament. . .

Peace,
Like a Child

[peach_cube]

[quote name='Like a Child' post='1024996' date='Jul 15 2006, 11:38 AM']
I agree with all of your logic, peach. (What is that name all about anyway? I like it. . .I think.)

1. Fornication is clearly a sin. [i]YES![/i]
2. Fornication would include sexual acts between any unmarried persons. [i]YES![/i]
3. Marriage is between a man and a woman. [i]Yes, this is currently the case.[/i]
4. Any sexual act not between a married couple is fornication. [i]YES![/i]

Just like your logic, my solution is quite simple:

Allow gays and lesbians (who are equal to heterosexuals in EVERY way, are human beings with God-given and inalienable rights, and are NOT sinners just by virtue of who they are) to share in the Sacrament of Marriage with the rest of us. Problem solved!

As things are now, we are in essence forcing gays and lesbians to sin by denying them the Sacrament. . .

Peace,
Like a Child
[/quote]


Except you cannot change the form of a sacrament. You must use water for baptism, you must use wine and bread for the Eucharist, if you do not then it is not a sacrament. The proper form for the sacrement of marriage is between a man and a woman. Just as grape juice and donuts cannot be used for a scrament, because they are not the proper form, same sex marriages would not be the proper form and thus cannot be sacramental.

Problems are not solved by changing the rules of the equation, they are solved when the rules are complied with.

We are all sinners.

P. S. peach+cube= a very odd term of affection.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

Marriage, by the very nature of the word itself, cannot but be between a man and a woman.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Like a Child' post='1024996' date='Jul 15 2006, 11:38 AM']
I agree with all of your logic, peach. (What is that name all about anyway? I like it. . .I think.)

1. Fornication is clearly a sin. [i]YES![/i]
2. Fornication would include sexual acts between any unmarried persons. [i]YES![/i]
3. Marriage is between a man and a woman. [i]Yes, this is currently the case.[/i]
4. Any sexual act not between a married couple is fornication. [i]YES![/i]

Just like your logic, my solution is quite simple:

Allow gays and lesbians (who are equal to heterosexuals in EVERY way, are human beings with God-given and inalienable rights, and are NOT sinners just by virtue of who they are) to share in the Sacrament of Marriage with the rest of us. Problem solved!

As things are now, we are in essence forcing gays and lesbians to sin by denying them the Sacrament. . .

Peace,
Like a Child
[/quote]

As was said earlier, we could not give them the sacrament. In fact, it would be a worse sin to "allow" them to have the sacrament. They wouldn't actually have it and would still be in their sins and the Church would be guilty of not warning them that they were sinning.

Besides, even if we could "marry" them so that their acts weren't fornication, they would still be homosexual acts, which are gravely sinful in themselves.

Of course, it still stands that the form of the sacrament cannot change.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

even apart from the sacramental view, it's impossible to have two people of the same sex enter into a marriage because marriage implies parenthood (marriage="mater" (in Latin)=mother), which is impossible through homosexual acts.

[iheartjp2]

[quote]"Jesus taught us to love everyone, even our enemies and those who are different from us, not destroy and mistreat them," said one ad published in The Indianapolis Star.
[/quote]

Since when is denying someone the sanction of marriage or indulgence in their unnatural behavior 'mistreating' or 'destroying' anyone?

Simple answer: it isn't.

However, holding up vulgar signs that say things like 'GOD HATES FAGS' and 'GOD DIDN'T MAKE ADAM AND STEVE', yelling at people that gays will go to hell and that they have no CHANCE of repentence is doing so. That's what people did to my church one Sunday last fall. This group randomly chose 5 churches in my county and did that, which isn't a very smart thing to do, considering my parish is probably the most conservative and orthodox of the Catholic parishes in the city, and know better than even these radical anti-gay activists do. These sorts of things are the reason why people mesh the orthodox with the heterodox concerning God's stance on homosexuality. Of course these things would leave people confused, hurt, and thinking that this is actually what Christians believe, even though it's not. If people really knew the true Church teaching on the matter, they wouldn't be so quick as to ask such loaded questions. They're probably not attacking us at all. They're attacking the idiots that really do believe that Jesus would in the more conventional or commonly misconstrued sense of the word, discriminate.

We would do better to not only show Christ's love and true teaching to those who are gay or support gay marriage, but also and rather to those who are actually mistreating them as they claim the whole of Christianity is, even though what they claim really isn't the case.


[quote name='Socrates']These signs are ridiculous and disgusting.[/quote]

A little strong language there, eh? I agree with you to the extent that they're a little mixed up, but would you actually walk up to someone in the MCC and say that to their face? That's not exactly Christ's love, and if you really think about it, a lot of these people haven't experienced Christ's love at all. Try to be a little more charitable, even on the boards when not necessarily speaking to them directly.

[quote name='CCC par. 2358']The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, [b]constitutes for most of them a trial[/b]. They must be accepted with [b]respect[/b], [b]compassion[/b], and [b]sensitivity[/b]. [b]Every[/b] sign of unjust discrimination [b]in their regard[/b] (meaning anything which they would deem to be offensive, which would definitely be your comment, Socrates) should be avoided.[/quote]

[Like a Child]

[quote name='peach_cube' post='1025026' date='Jul 15 2006, 09:30 AM']
Except you cannot change the form of a sacrament. You must use water for baptism, you must use wine and bread for the Eucharist, if you do not then it is not a sacrament. The proper form for the sacrement of marriage is between a man and a woman. Just as grape juice and donuts cannot be used for a scrament, because they are not the proper form, same sex marriages would not be the proper form and thus cannot be sacramental.

Problems are not solved by changing the rules of the equation, they are solved when the rules are complied with.

We are all sinners.

P. S. peach+cube= a very odd term of affection.
[/quote]

Ah, yes. Indeed we ARE all sinners. I misspoke.

[quote name='Raphael' post='1025047' date='Jul 15 2006, 10:15 AM']
As was said earlier, we could not give them the sacrament. In fact, it would be a worse sin to "allow" them to have the sacrament. They wouldn't actually have it and would still be in their sins and the Church would be guilty of not warning them that they were sinning.

Besides, even if we could "marry" them so that their acts weren't fornication, they would still be homosexual acts, which are gravely sinful in themselves.

Of course, it still stands that the form of the sacrament cannot change.
[/quote]

Can someone remind me of why/when/how the Church established marriage as a sacrament? I know there is plentiful scriptural evidence for the other sacraments, but I'm kind of drawing a blank on this one. I'd be particulary interested in anything our Lord Himself is reported to have said on the matter. I do remember the verse about "What God hath joined in heaven. . .let no man tear asunder" (paraphrase) so don't quote that one. . .but any other tidbits from Him.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Like a Child' post='1025051' date='Jul 15 2006, 01:30 PM']
Ah, yes. Indeed we ARE all sinners. I misspoke.
Can someone remind me of why/when/how the Church established marriage as a sacrament? I know there is plentiful scriptural evidence for the other sacraments, but I'm kind of drawing a blank on this one. I'd be particulary interested in anything our Lord Himself is reported to have said on the matter. I do remember the verse about "What God hath joined in heaven. . .let no man tear asunder" (paraphrase) so don't quote that one. . .but any other tidbits from Him.
[/quote]
Well, there's the Wedding Feast at Cana, at which Jesus gives His implicit blessing to the Institution of Marriage. Then there are the verses from St. Paul. Those in particular would be helpful, since he states that marriage is between the head and the body, identifying men as the head of a woman. Now, in homosexuality, you'll either have a two-headed monster or a couple of headless folks running around.

In all seriousness, though, marriage was instituted by Christ, even if it doesn't appear solidly in Scripture. Remember that the Church doesn't need something to be explicit in Scripture to understand it a certain way. We know that Christ agreed with marriage and celebrated it; we know that St. Paul recommended it to those who discerned it as their vocation. Finally, we know that natural law defines it as between man and woman.

[Like a Child]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1025047' date='Jul 15 2006, 10:15 AM']
As was said earlier, we could not give them the sacrament. In fact, it would be a worse sin to "allow" them to have the sacrament. They wouldn't actually have it and would still be in their sins and the Church would be guilty of not warning them that they were sinning.

Besides, even if we could "marry" them so that their acts weren't fornication, they would still be homosexual acts, which are gravely sinful in themselves.

Of course, it still stands that the form of the sacrament cannot change.
[/quote]

Raphael, I'm not sure we've really established that homosexual acts are gravely sinful.

--Okay, The Old Testament seems to indicate so (hmm. . .which I have to admit doesn't mean all that much to me; prejudice and judgmentalism have existed in all cultures and all throughout time, plus a law against homosexuality is NOT in the Ten Commandments (which do mean a lot to me), plus if we were to follow all the backward ideas in the Old Testament we'd still be stoning women and worse.)
--Paul is less than clear about condemning homosexuality itself (did you read my post above? He may very well have been railing against abusive pedophilia and prostitution more than he was railing about gays themselves.) And, even if he was meaning to condemn all homosexuality, once again, prejudice and judgmentalism have existed throughout all time. People have been freaked out about gays practically forever --a reaction which I honestly don't understand. Paul, like us, was a fallible human being. He was truly GREAT, but he might have gotten some stuff wrong.
--Jesus NEVER condemned homosexuality. He spent a great deal of time focusing on individuals who DID NOT love one another in many various ways. He did not say a flippin' thing that could be interpreted as a condemnation of a certain form of Love, a.k.a. homosexuality.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Like a Child' post='1025061' date='Jul 15 2006, 01:44 PM']
Raphael, I'm not sure we've really established that homosexual acts are gravely sinful.

--Okay, The Old Testament seems to indicate so (hmm. . .which I have to admit doesn't mean all that much to me; prejudice and judgmentalism have existed in all cultures and all throughout time, plus a law against homosexuality is NOT in the Ten Commandments (which do mean a lot to me), plus if we were to follow all the backward ideas in the Old Testament we'd still be stoning women and worse.)
--Paul is less than clear about condemning homosexuality itself (did you read my post above? He may very well have been railing against abusive pedophilia and prostitution more than he was railing about gays themselves.) And, even if he was meaning to condemn all homosexuality, once again, prejudice and judgmentalism have existed throughout all time. People have been freaked out about gays practically forever --a reaction which I honestly don't understand. Paul, like us, was a fallible human being. He was truly GREAT, but he might have gotten some stuff wrong.
--Jesus NEVER condemned homosexuality. He spent a great deal of time focusing on individuals who DID NOT love one another in many various ways. He did not say a flippin' thing that could be interpreted as a condemnation of a certain form of Love, a.k.a. homosexuality.
[/quote]

1. Well, first, I'd like to see one of those backward laws of the Old Testament of which you speak. I just took a course in the Old Testament and it opened my eyes to how misinterpretted the Books of the Law are in our society. The Old Testament (that's the Word of God, mind you) is against homosexual relations.

2. St. Paul was most certainly against homosexual activity. He says so. Do you know how homosexuality was carried out in the ancient world? I've studied classics for seven years...that's what he was talking about when he said "effeminate men" and the like. Further, you can't simply claim whenever something is "intolerant" by our society's standards that it was simply a misguided apostle writing it down. The Scriptures were guided by the Holy Spirit; they can't be misguided.

3. Jesus condemned lust, which homosexuality is. Lust is a falling short of love. Homosexuality falls short of erotic love because it cannot result in union or procreation. Therefore, any intent to act on one's affections is a misguided attempt. Our affections prompt us to make an act of love, but if our affections are fallen (cf. concupiscience), then we have the obligations to correct our affections and not act on them. Ultimately, homosexual activity is a decision to act on a homosexual affection which the person knows cannot fulfill the requirements necessary to be an act of erotic love, and therefore, is an act of lust.

This is what the Catholic Church says:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

[Like a Child]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1025056' date='Jul 15 2006, 10:36 AM']
Well, there's the Wedding Feast at Cana, at which Jesus gives His implicit blessing to the Institution of Marriage. Then there are the verses from St. Paul. Those in particular would be helpful, since he states that marriage is between the head and the body, identifying men as the head of a woman. Now, in homosexuality, you'll either have a two-headed monster or a couple of headless folks running around.

In all seriousness, though, marriage was instituted by Christ, even if it doesn't appear solidly in Scripture. Remember that the Church doesn't need something to be explicit in Scripture to understand it a certain way. We know that Christ agreed with marriage and celebrated it; we know that St. Paul recommended it to those who discerned it as their vocation. Finally, we know that natural law defines it as between man and woman.
[/quote]


I can see where you're coming from with the Wedding of Cana, it's a good thought, but I'm not sure that's a strong piece of evidence. In fact, the scriptural text itself doesn't really help us in this matter at all. It says so little about the wedding itself (because that's not what the story is really about) that for all we know the bride (who I believe is never mentioned) is a dude. Okay, now I'm being silly.

On to Paul. . .I am not attempting to prove that Paul was okay with homosexuality. I know I cannot establish that with certainty. However, as Catholics are not Biblical literalists, I assume it's okay for me to try to honestly look at the spirit and intention and context of what he wrote. Just like Jesus, Paul was a radical in many ways. His views, as expressed in chapter 7 of 1 Corinthians are nothing less than revolutionary. The Jewish community reading or hearing his words back in those days, would have been amazed. Paul's idea of marriage is incredibly egalitarian and loaded with authentic concern for both men and women in a marriage. He is saying that there is no ONE WAY for people to be married. Some Christians married to pagans he allows to leave their spouses. Other Christians married to pagans he encourages to hold fast. He encourages some folks not to get married at all. His main point is that, ". . .as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches." (1 Corinthians 7:17).

MY point is that if Paul were here today he might not be so quick to condemn gay marriage.

[quote name='Raphael' post='1025071' date='Jul 15 2006, 11:03 AM']
1. Well, first, I'd like to see one of those backward laws of the Old Testament of which you speak. I just took a course in the Old Testament and it opened my eyes to how misinterpretted the Books of the Law are in our society. The Old Testament (that's the Word of God, mind you) is against homosexual relations.

2. St. Paul was most certainly against homosexual activity. He says so. Do you know how homosexuality was carried out in the ancient world? I've studied classics for seven years...that's what he was talking about when he said "effeminate men" and the like. Further, you can't simply claim whenever something is "intolerant" by our society's standards that it was simply a misguided apostle writing it down. The Scriptures were guided by the Holy Spirit; they can't be misguided.

3. Jesus condemned lust, which homosexuality is. Lust is a falling short of love. Homosexuality falls short of erotic love because it cannot result in union or procreation. Therefore, any intent to act on one's affections is a misguided attempt. Our affections prompt us to make an act of love, but if our affections are fallen (cf. concupiscience), then we have the obligations to correct our affections and not act on them. Ultimately, homosexual activity is a decision to act on a homosexual affection which the person knows cannot fulfill the requirements necessary to be an act of erotic love, and therefore, is an act of lust.

This is what the Catholic Church says:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
[/quote]


In response to #2 about Paul above. . .I don't think you read my earlier post. I too have studied that era (perhaps not as extensively as you ). Here is what I wrote in one of my original posts: (By the way I know "Protestant Theologian" won't carry much weight with you, but alas, those are the experts I know best. I was raised in the Protestant church.)

3. PAUL
I agree that Paul appears to condemn homosexuality. However, we have to look closer at CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT. At the time that Paul wrote 1 Corinithians, he was no doubt aware of the widespread sinfulness and decadence found among the Romans. Many of the Romans (especially the wealthy) were indeed forincators, idolators, and adulterers, among other things. There was also a big problem at the time with wealthy men shaving, emmasculating, and having sexual relations with their male slaves or prostitutes. (Many Jewish and secular authors living at the time of Paul have confirmed this as has Protestant Theologian, Victor Paul Furnish, in his book entitled, The Moral Teachings of Paul.)

Our New American Bible translates 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 as follows: Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. The actual words Paul uses are "malakoi" (which refers to weak and soft individuals, i.e., the "boy prostitues") and "arsenokoitai" (which refers to men who actively perform the primary male-on-male sex act, which I'm not sure I can really spell out in this forum). My point? Paul was condemning abusive, unequal, unhealthy sex ACTS between powerful men (pedophiles) and powerless boys. That is a far cry from condemning healthy, mature, equal, loving RELATIONSHIPS between two adult men.