Coming soon to a billboard near you

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Like a Child' post='1025073' date='Jul 15 2006, 02:13 PM']
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]

1. Yes, it would be ridiculous to say that the bride was a man. My point, however, is that by performing a miracle in support of the wedding party, Jesus gave His seal of approval to the institution of marriage.

2. St. Paul was not saying that there are different types of marriage for different types of people. Look at his reasoning. He allowed marriage between Christians and pagans for what? So that the pagans would be made righteous through the marriage...St. Paul approved of it for the sake of conversion. He didn't approve of anything just because people felt like doing it, even if they claimed love. If St. Paul were here today, he would condemn gay marriage very quickly. Gay marriage produces nothing, and is therefore one of the trees Christ said would need to be cut away and burned up.

[quote name='Like a Child' post='1025073' date='Jul 15 2006, 02:21 PM']
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.
[/quote]

The problem with this thinking is that St. Paul isn't condemning "boy prostitutes nor sodomites" as one unit. He is condemning them separately, just as he is condemning each of these other groups separately. That means he's condemning boy prostitutes. Period. He is also condemning sodomites. Period. If he had said something like "arsenokoitai kai autou malakoi" (it's been a while since I've had Greek...what I mean is "sodomites and their boy-prostitutes") it would be a valid point, but he didn't tie them together any more than he tied together sodomites and theives.

Edited July 15, 2006 by Raphael

[Like a Child]

[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]

One more thing. . .I hope you don't mind me asking. If you do, I understand. Do you personally know any gay people? Do you have any gay friends? Some of my dearest friends over the years have been gay and lesbian (although I myself am straight). They are some of the sweetest, most sensitive, understanding, and beautiful human beings I know. Their love for their partners is not FALLEN or DEPRAVED or DISORDERED, and it in no way falls short of erotic love. Quite the contrary. In fact, the gay couples I know are much more honest and loving and respectful with one another than are many of the straight couples I know. They make excellent parents as well! (Oh no! I can heart Dr. James Dobson and Dr. Laura coming to kick my *%#@ right now!)

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Like a Child' post='1025079' date='Jul 15 2006, 02:31 PM']
One more thing. . .I hope you don't mind me asking. If you do, I understand. Do you personally know any gay people? Do you have any gay friends? Some of my dearest friends over the years have been gay and lesbian (although I myself am straight). They are some of the sweetest, most sensitive, understanding, and beautiful human beings I know. Their love for their partners is not FALLEN or DEPRAVED or DISORDERED, and it in no way falls short of erotic love. Quite the contrary. In fact, the gay couples I know are much more honest and loving and respectful with one another than are many of the straight couples I know. They make excellent parents as well! (Oh no! I can heart Dr. James Dobson and Dr. Laura coming to kick my *%#@ right now!)
[/quote]

I do know gay people, yes. I have also a gay friend. She chose to live a chaste life.

Almost all love between humans is fallen. It very often falls short, although not always intentionally (which makes it sinful).

What I am saying is that affection should, in an unfallen world, be ordered toward fruitfulness. If it is not, then it is fallen and disordered affection. Now, since homosexual affection cannot be fruitful (no matter how honest and respectful you may find it), then acting on it is acting on a disordered affection. Now, when we have disordered affections of one sort or another (and all of us do: some love food, some love money, some love power, etc.), we have the obligation to keep ourselves from acting on them, especially from removing ourselves from the occasion to act on them, and to correct the affection as much as we are able. If we reject this and choose instead to act on the disordered affection, then we sin (because we knowingly do what is wrong). Now, since the sin of Sodom is one of the sins that cry to heaven (that's an official designation it earned for meriting destruction from on high), it is grave matter. Therefore, one who knowingly and willingly practices homosexual activities, aware of these facts, is objectively in mortal sin.

Now, there are four types of love. There is the love of things, the love of people (brotherly), the love of spouse (erotic), and the love of God (agape). I do not deny that homosexuals may have brotherly love for one another and also act on disordered affections (although their love would not be a Christian love or graced love). I think this is what confuses so many people when they think they know "great, loving homosexual couples."

Edited July 15, 2006 by Raphael

[Like a Child]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1025077' date='Jul 15 2006, 11:28 AM']
1. Yes, it would be ridiculous to say that the bride was a man. My point, however, is that by performing a miracle in support of the wedding party, Jesus gave His seal of approval to the institution of marriage.

2. St. Paul was not saying that there are different types of marriage for different types of people. Look at his reasoning. He allowed marriage between Christians and pagans for what? So that the pagans would be made righteous through the marriage...St. Paul approved of it for the sake of conversion. He didn't approve of anything just because people felt like doing it, even if they claimed love. If St. Paul were here today, he would condemn gay marriage very quickly. Gay marriage produces nothing, and is therefore one of the trees Christ said would need to be cut away and burned up.
The problem with this thinking is that St. Paul isn't condemning "boy prostitutes nor sodomites" as one unit. He is condemning them separately, just as he is condemning each of these other groups separately. That means he's condemning boy prostitutes. Period. He is also condemning sodomites. Period. If he had said something like "arsenokoitai kai autou malakoi" (it's been a while since I've had Greek...what I mean is "sodomites and their boy-prostitutes") it would be a valid point, but he didn't tie them together any more than he tied together sodomites and theives.
[/quote]

I can see your point about condemning them separately and it's possible. However, again, I must say that considering the huge problem of male prostitution at the time, I think he is condemning both "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai" as one unit. Arrgh. . .I have to go to work. I will try to write more later.

This is fun, Raphael! :

[Socrates]

[quote name='Like a Child' post='1024830' date='Jul 14 2006, 07:13 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.
[/quote]
I am not giving my my own personal opinion on homosexuality, but that of the Bible and the constant teaching of the Church.
And condemning certain actions as sinful is not the same as hate. I myself am a sinner, yet I will admit that my sins are wrong and need to be repented of. Admonishing the sinner is considered one of the Spiritual Works of Mercy. Christ calls all sinners to repent and follow Him. As He said to the woman caught in adultery after forgiving her: "Go and sin no more."

[quote]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. [/quote]
Jesus' preached a message of love, but He was quite clear in condemning actions as sinful. As I noted above, He calls sinners to repentance, not to conitinue unrepentent in their sins. And He had harsh words to say to those who were unrepentent. Read the Gospels from start to finish; it is clear that Jesus was no moral relativist.
Christ did not specifically condemn homosexuality in the Gospels, because He was preaching to the Jews, who already regarded homosexuality as an abominable crime, punishable by death. Preaching against the evil of homosexuality would have been unnecessary "preaching to the choir."
Christ was not afraid of correcting or changing Jewish traditions that were wrong, and if He disagreed with the Jewish teachings on homosexuality, he would have said so.
St. Paul wrote to the Gentiles, converted pagans, in whose culture homosexuality was more commonly practiced and accepted, and thus specifically condemned this particular vice. (more on Paul later).
And note that in the Sermon on the Mount, Christ preached a law of sexual morality that was [i]stricter[/i], not more lax, than the Law of Moses. (Condemning all divorce and remarriage, and saying that if a man lusts after a woman, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart, etc.)

[quote]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. [/quote]
It has been traditional teaching that there are two parts to the Law laid down in the Old Testament, the moral law, and the disciplinary law (circumcision, clean and unclean foods, etc.). (Someone explained this better somewhere else here - unfortunately I don't have the resources at hand.) Condemnation of homosexuality and other sexual immorality is part of the moral law, and does not change. The Church nowhere changed its position on homosexuality. If the law and homosexuality had changed after Christ, there would be some mention of this, yet homosexuality and other sexual vice continued to be condemned by Paul, even after he said that other parts of the Jewish law were not binding on gentile converts.
The Church, as recorded in Acts 15:20 decided that gentile Christians were not bound to follow the Law of Moses except as regarding meat sacrificed to idols and fornication (understood as applying to all sexual immorality).

[quote]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].)?[/quote]
It is unclear what you are trying to prove here. Many of these vices are common in society today, and are no less sinful now than they were then.

[quote]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]
In other words, Paul was condemning sodomy (in both the active and passive roles).
Liberal bible commentators will always try to find ways around bible passages which clearly condemn what they want to defend, by claiming the passages are really condemning something else.
However, St. Paul does not make any qualifications for homosexual acts based on things like "maturity" and "equality." That is modern liberal hogwash. He does not say this anymore than he makes allowances for fornication or adultery, so long as they are "healthy, mature, equal, loving RELATIONSHIPS between two consenting adults."
A "relationship" is sinful if it consists of intrinsically sinful acts such as sodomy.

The Church has always taught that sodomy is contrary to nature and to the proper purpose of human sexuality. As St. Paul said in Romans 1:27:
[quote]And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts, one towards another: men with men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.[/quote]

The condemnation of homosexuality in scripture is clear. Those who reject it, ultimately must reject Sacred Scripture.

And, Like a Child, it's unclear whether you consider yourself Catholic, but, if you are, the Church has consistantly taught that homosexuality is sinful and disordered for almost 2000 years. This is not a "conservative" or "liberal" opinion, but the constant teaching of Christ's Church.

Edited July 15, 2006 by Socrates

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Like a Child' post='1025083' date='Jul 15 2006, 02:55 PM']
I can see your point about condemning them separately and it's possible. However, again, I must say that considering the huge problem of male prostitution at the time, I think he is condemning both "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai" as one unit. Arrgh. . .I have to go to work. I will try to write more later.

This is fun, Raphael! :
[/quote]

Well, the male prostitution rings certainly involved boys, but that doesn't intrinsically tie them (if you've ever been to Pompeii, you know that Roman men practiced sodomy with women, too...St. Paul was condemning unfruitful sexual relations, which includes all homosexual activity). Keep in mind that most of those boys would have been of legal age for marriage to a woman, anyway. I don't think the age difference is as big a deal to St. Paul as you make it out to be...his main point was against homosexual activity as carried out by boy prostitutes and as also carried out by adults.

Edited July 15, 2006 by Raphael

[Fides_et_Ratio]

Gen 2:24 "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two become one flesh."

Marriage is the great "one flesh" union. This union is impossible in homosexual couples because they cannot copulate. Oh sure, they may do sexual activities, but they cannot do what ultimate end of marriage is-- become parents. Homosexual acts are gravely sinful, gravely disordered, etc. because they are fruitless and sterile. The design of sex is impossible.

Jesus condemns homosexuality by citing the very verse from Genesis posted above (cf. Matthew 19:4-6). Furthermore, for those that do have homosexual feelings, they are called to a life of chastity by Jesus (see Matthew 19:12... "some are incapable of marriage..." Homosexual persons are incapable of marriage because they are incapable of producing offspring together because they cannot fully engage in the "one flesh" union").

[bx_racer]

[quote name='Lahecil' post='1024692' date='Jul 14 2006, 03:13 PM']
I'm considering (once I'm old enough of course) taking out a billboard that says "ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US" and directions to a nearby ice cream parlor...because anyone who understands it surely deserves an ice cream.

But seriously...aren't billboards enough of an eyesore without them telling everyone what Jesus did and did not do?
[/quote]

hahaha all ur base r belong to us
thats a funny video

[djc08]

Sorry off topic...

Two billboards in Missouri that I've seen.

I've been standing up for local business for years.
-Billboard
(like it's a quote on the billboard)

The other
"Looking for a sign from God? Here's one!
Consider the priesthood.

Edited July 18, 2006 by djc08

[Like a Child]

Sorry, I've been away from this thread for a few days. . .and I don't have the energy to go back through and comment on each individual thought/comment that you all brought up. I will try, however, to summarize my points, and hopefully they will serve as a response to everyone's general objections above.

I had the great fortune (I'm sure most of you would see it as a misfortune) to grow up in a progressive Protestant family with an Episcopalian theologian for a father. So my whole life, I have been surrounded by and had great conversations with priests, religious, theologians, and lay people who feel very different about the issue of homosexuality than the folks on this forum do. In fact, (prepare yourselves for this one!) at one of the churches we attended as kids, we were shepherded by two openly gay pastors (gasp!).

I mention this for the following reason: As much as it may bother you to read this, there ARE many, many well-respected and learned biblical scholars who do not believe that homosexuals are "gravely disordered" and that their affections are sinful because they do not lead to "fruitfulness." These scholars are not "trying to find ways around biblical passages" that they do not agree with, as Socrates suggested. They simply, after looking at all the evidence, came up with a different conclusion than have more conservative scholars. (Many of these scholars challenge classical interpretations of the passages in 1 Corninthians and Romans mentioned above.)

But, let us say for the sake of argument, that the authors of the Bible DID intend to condemn homosexuality outright. Well,
--This still doesn't mean God/Jesus condemned it. Yes, scripture is inspired. Yes, its writing was led by the Holy Spirit. But the men who wrote it down still had their own free agency. I do not believe, as Biblical literalists do, that the Bible was copied down verbatim as the authors heard the exact words and meanings from God. No, what makes far more sense, is that the men who wrote the Bible were influenced by the popular opinions (and prejudices) of their time. Just as the story of Adam and Eve no doubted sprouted from fertile legends that predated it, so all of the Biblical writings sprout in some way from their surroundings, and ESPECIALLY, from the HUMAN minds of the men who wrote them.



[quote name='Like a Child' post='1026974' date='Jul 18 2006, 02:14 PM']
Sorry, I've been away from this thread for a few days. . .and I don't have the energy to go back through and comment on each individual thought/comment that you all brought up. I will try, however, to summarize my points, and hopefully they will serve as a response to everyone's general objections above.

I had the great fortune (I'm sure most of you would see it as a misfortune) to grow up in a progressive Protestant family with an Episcopalian theologian for a father. So my whole life, I have been surrounded by and had great conversations with priests, religious, theologians, and lay people who feel very different about the issue of homosexuality than the folks on this forum do. In fact, (prepare yourselves for this one!) at one of the churches we attended as kids, we were shepherded by two openly gay pastors (gasp!).

I mention this for the following reason: As much as it may bother you to read this, there ARE many, many well-respected and learned biblical scholars who do not believe that homosexuals are "gravely disordered" and that their affections are sinful because they do not lead to "fruitfulness." These scholars are not "trying to find ways around biblical passages" that they do not agree with, as Socrates suggested. They simply, after looking at all the evidence, came up with a different conclusion than have more conservative scholars. (Many of these scholars challenge classical interpretations of the passages in 1 Corninthians and Romans mentioned above.)

But, let us say for the sake of argument, that the authors of the Bible DID intend to condemn homosexuality outright. Well,
--This still doesn't mean God/Jesus condemned it. Yes, scripture is inspired. Yes, its writing was led by the Holy Spirit. But the men who wrote it down still had their own free agency. I do not believe, as Biblical literalists do, that the Bible was copied down verbatim as the authors heard the exact words and meanings from God. No, what makes far more sense, is that the men who wrote the Bible were influenced by the popular opinions (and prejudices) of their time. Just as the story of Adam and Eve no doubted sprouted from fertile legends that predated it, so all of the Biblical writings sprout in some way from their surroundings, and ESPECIALLY, from the HUMAN minds of the men who wrote them.
[/quote]
--Also, perhaps as I said, Paul would not be so quick to condemn homosexuality in our modern world. When he was alive, the term "homosexuality" didn't even exist. There was no scientific, biological, sociological, or behavioral understanding of it to speak of. Today, the vast majority of scholars in these fields (except maybe those working for Focus on the Family or other such organizations) accept that homosexuality is AT LEAST IN PART caused by biological factors. Are there some gays and lesbians out there who CHOSE to "be gay"? No doubt. But are most influenced completely or at least in part by their biology (read: their physical makeup given to them by God)? A huge amount of evidence indeed suggests this, YES!
Consider:
--Within countless animal species, a certain percentage of the creatures exhibit unmistakable homosexual tendencies.

[Like a Child]

I have no idea why this is coming out in a couple of different posts. . .I meant it to all be in one. Sorry!

--Also, in the past few decades, numerous studies have come out indicating how human sexuality may form. Here is just one interesting example from the APA:

"The neuroendocrine viewpoint's basic hypothesis is that sexual orientation is determined by the early levels (probably prenatal) of androgen on relevant neural structures [7]. If highly exposed to these androgens, the fetus will become masculinized, or attracted to females. This research was conducted on rats at Stanford. The adult female rats that received male-typical levels of androgens sufficiently early in development exhibited male symptoms of attraction. The same was true in the reverse when applied to the male subjects. The female exposed to high levels of the hormone exhibited high levels of aggression and sexual drive toward other females, eventually trying to mount the other females in an act of reproduction. In the males, the subject who received deficient levels of androgen became submissive in matters of sexual drive and reproduction and were willing to receive the sexual act of the other male rat [7]."

Before you get the chance to say it, yes, these are hypotheses. But they are tantalizing. I don't think it will be that much longer before science prooves that homosexuality, while sometimes attributal to NURTURE, is often attributal to NATURE as well.
That, I imagine, will cause those who think homosexuality is disorded some serious discomfort. Does God create these people to be disordered? And, if they are born this way, should we have the right to condemn them to a life of involuntary celibacy? It would be like saying, "Oh, sorry, you have red hair. We will not allow you to date or settle down with anyone. . .because you came out wrong. . .oh yeah, and because we already defined marriage a certain way before we knew that red hair was normal, you can't have any part in the Sacrament of Marriage --ever!"

My point here is that our modern understanding of human sexuality is VERY different from the understanding that Paul (and the Old Testament writers) had. I think if Paul had had this information back when he was writing, he may have written differently. He did his best, he was inspired by the Holy Spirit, but no, he wasn't omniscient. The idea of homosexuality being a matter of biological human nature WOULD impact his thoughts on the matter.

Finally, the reason this whole issue is important is because our thoughts on the matter of homosexuality likely determine how we treat homosexuals. If a person can believe that homosexuality is gravely disordered and sinful and still sincerely love a homosexual, more power to him/her! Perhaps there are people like that out there somewhere. But I have my doubts.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Like a Child' post='1026974' date='Jul 18 2006, 03:24 PM']
Sorry, I've been away from this thread for a few days. . .and I don't have the energy to go back through and comment on each individual thought/comment that you all brought up. I will try, however, to summarize my points, and hopefully they will serve as a response to everyone's general objections above.

I had the great fortune (I'm sure most of you would see it as a misfortune) to grow up in a progressive Protestant family with an Episcopalian theologian for a father. So my whole life, I have been surrounded by and had great conversations with priests, religious, theologians, and lay people who feel very different about the issue of homosexuality than the folks on this forum do. In fact, (prepare yourselves for this one!) at one of the churches we attended as kids, we were shepherded by two openly gay pastors (gasp!).

I mention this for the following reason: As much as it may bother you to read this, there ARE many, many well-respected and learned biblical scholars who do not believe that homosexuals are "gravely disordered" and that their affections are sinful because they do not lead to "fruitfulness." These scholars are not "trying to find ways around biblical passages" that they do not agree with, as Socrates suggested. They simply, after looking at all the evidence, came up with a different conclusion than have more conservative scholars. (Many of these scholars challenge classical interpretations of the passages in 1 Corninthians and Romans mentioned above.)[/quote]
I am quite aware that there are (and have been for a long time) plenty of "well-respected" and learned "Biblical scholars" who reject much of Christian theology and moral teaching. I have been arguing against such things for years.
Many of them not only deny the immorality of homosexuality and other immoral activity, but also deny such things as the divinity of Christ, the reality of Christ's resurrection, and the historical truth of the Gospel accounts. Don't expect me to be shocked and awed at the existance of liberal theologians and "bible scholars" who deny many key aspects of the Christian Faith as it has been handed down for 2000 years.

These liberal scholars do not base their views on homosexuality and other moral issues with "evidence" written in the Bible, but rather tailor their "interpretation" of biblical passages to conform with their own liberal relativist views. (i.e. "We know homosexuality is fine and good. Therefore anything in the Bible condemning it either [i]really[/i] is condemning something else, or is wrong and mistaken and doesn't need to be heeded in our 'enlightened' age")

(I wonder how they'd answer Romans 1:26-27 part of which I quoted earlier. The issue there is clearly people lusting and committing sexual acts with people of the same sex, rather than of the opposite sex. It's a little hard to say the real issue there is age/class differences, or slavery or prostitution, etc.)

These people try to conform their religious beliefs to the world, rather than conforming their beliefs to the Christian Faith.

[quote]But, let us say for the sake of argument, that the authors of the Bible DID intend to condemn homosexuality outright. Well,
--This still doesn't mean God/Jesus condemned it. Yes, scripture is inspired. Yes, its writing was led by the Holy Spirit. But the men who wrote it down still had their own free agency. I do not believe, as Biblical literalists do, that the Bible was copied down verbatim as the authors heard the exact words and meanings from God. No, what makes far more sense, is that the men who wrote the Bible were influenced by the popular opinions (and prejudices) of their time. Just as the story of Adam and Eve no doubted sprouted from fertile legends that predated it, so all of the Biblical writings sprout in some way from their surroundings, and ESPECIALLY, from the HUMAN minds of the men who wrote them.[/quote]
This is not the Catholic teaching on the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. The Church teaches that Sacred Scripture can teach no error - particularly regarding Faith and Morals.
If you don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, but believe that the moral teachings in the Bible can be brushed aside as mere human opinions and prejudices, there is little point in arguing about what the Bible has to say about homosexuality or anything else. Why should we even pay attention to the Bible at all? With this line of thinking, it is quite easy for anyone to dismiss anything he disagrees with as outdated prejudiced poppycock.
My whole original point is that it is absurd to argue that the Bible promotes homosexuality.

[quote] --Also, perhaps as I said, Paul would not be so quick to condemn homosexuality in our modern world. When he was alive, the term "homosexuality" didn't even exist. There was no scientific, biological, sociological, or behavioral understanding of it to speak of. Today, the vast majority of scholars in these fields (except maybe those working for Focus on the Family or other such organizations) accept that homosexuality is AT LEAST IN PART caused by biological factors. Are there some gays and lesbians out there who CHOSE to "be gay"? No doubt. But are most influenced completely or at least in part by their biology (read: their physical makeup given to them by God)? A huge amount of evidence indeed suggests this, YES!
Consider:
--Within countless animal species, a certain percentage of the creatures exhibit unmistakable homosexual tendencies.[/quote]
Whether the term "homosexuality" existed, what is today known as homosexual behavior did exist, and is condemned in the passages I have listed. (Men lying with men as with a woman, sodomy, etc.) There is nothing new under the sun in terms of human vices. It is just that now we try to justify them as virtues.
These biological theories you speak of are completely irrelevant to this discussion. It has not been clearly established that homosexuality is biologically determined, and even if it were, that would have no bearing on the morality of human actions.
Some scientists now claim a biological basis for basically all human behavior.
Would you suppose that if St. Paul were up-to-date on all the latest in evolutionary and biological theory, he would be ok with fornication and adultery too?
After all, a lot of secular scientists argue that these things are part of our biological make-up. Monkeys are pretty promiscuous animals, so why whould we act any different?
Based on the behavior of apes, some have concluded that even such things as murder and war are a part of our biological nature.
Should such theories have any bearing on our moral theology?

Human morality is not determined by biology. Man is a spiritual moral creature. As Christians, we are not called to behave like monkeys or rats.

Edited July 19, 2006 by Socrates

[Fides_et_Ratio]

Re: "biological" evidence for homosexuality...

We live in a fallen world. People are born with deformities all the time. Part of the mental disorder that homosexuality is could include biological/physical deformities (I think I read once about a study on receptors in the nose that are malformed in many homosexual persons). Ergo, even if homosexuality is related to biology, it is still a disorder-- in need of desperate repair.

As I've said numerous times, marriage, by the very word itself, can only be between a man and a woman. Homosexual persons cannot, no matter how much they love each other, make the other person a mother or father. They cannot will parenthood for the other, and this is the very word "marriage" itself that comes from the Latin 'mater' (meaning 'mother'). A man asks a woman to marry him so that he can make her a mother.

[Like a Child]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1027052' date='Jul 18 2006, 04:43 PM']
I am quite aware that there are (and have been for a long time) plenty of "well-respected" and learned "Biblical scholars" who reject much of Christian theology and moral teaching. I have been arguing against such things for years.
Many of them not only deny the immorality of homosexuality and other immoral activity, but also deny such things as the divinity of Christ, the reality of Christ's resurrection, and the historical truth of the Gospel accounts. Don't expect me to be shocked and awed at the existance of liberal theologians and "bible scholars" who deny many key aspects of the Christian Faith as it has been handed down for 2000 years.

These liberal scholars do not base their views on homosexuality and other moral issues with "evidence" written in the Bible, but rather tailor their "interpretation" of biblical passages to conform with their own liberal relativist views. (i.e. "We know homosexuality is fine and good. Therefore anything in the Bible condemning it either [i]really[/i] is condemning something else, or is wrong and mistaken and doesn't need to be heeded in our 'enlightened' age")

(I wonder how they'd answer Romans 1:26-27 part of which I quoted earlier. The issue there is clearly people lusting and committing sexual acts with people of the same sex, rather than of the opposite sex. It's a little hard to say the real issue there is age/class differences, or slavery or prostitution, etc.)

These people try to conform their religious beliefs to the world, rather than conforming their beliefs to the Christian Faith.
This is not the Catholic teaching on the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. The Church teaches that Sacred Scripture can teach no error - particularly regarding Faith and Morals.
If you don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, but believe that the moral teachings in the Bible can be brushed aside as mere human opinions and prejudices, there is little point in arguing about what the Bible has to say about homosexuality or anything else. Why should we even pay attention to the Bible at all? With this line of thinking, it is quite easy for anyone to dismiss anything he disagrees with as outdated prejudiced poppycock.

[i]A couple of things:

1. Don't put words in my mouth. I am in no way suggesting that the moral teachings in the Bible be "brushed aside." There is a big difference between totally disregarding Biblical teaching and recognizing that God's wisdom and instruction has been delivered to us via fallible human beings. God built His "C"hurch on the backs of errant apostles and even picked perhaps the weakest of them, Peter, as His foundation. No doubt Christ knew the apostles would make mistakes in the future just as they made mistakes and proved lacking in faith and love while he was still with them. He knew they wouldn't be perfect. So would he have thought the Bible would somehow turn out perfect? I don't think so. Nonetheless, He has trusted us (as long as we have Him by our side) to work out our own salvation. I believe God gave me a mind and a conscience to be able to interpret his Word and to live a moral life. And his instructions to us were so simple: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, all your soul, and all your strength, and love your neighbor as yourself." If we TRULY are doing this, then Socrates, I'm not sure it much matters that you and I disagree on God's opinion of homosexuals.

So what does my perspective on the Bible look like in practice? Well, I look to the Bible for guidance. I try not to sin. I agree that fornication is wrong, so instead of indulging myself whenever I please, I live a chaste life. If I was gay, I would still live a chaste life. I go to Mass everyday; I pray hard everyday; I go to confession at least twice a year; I am active in my church; I try not to kill people . Most importantly, I try to love as God, through Christ, has instructed me to love. This, I think, is what God wants us to focus on. After all, there are far more references in the Bible to love, humility, patience, sacrifice, and faith than there are to issues like homosexuality. There are also a TON more references about the danger and sinfulness of wealth in the New Testament than there are to homosexuality. But does anyone talk about that on this forum? I feel silly going back and forth on this issue for so long, because really, if what we want is to JUDGE someone, we should spend our time judging the rich. Judging by the Bible, it is THEIR salvation that is in serious peril, much more so than the homosexual's. But I guess the issue of wealth isn't as "sexy" as this one; it's not as fun to judge the rich. . .perhaps because in this capitalistic Western society of ours, we ARE the rich.


2. Conservatives "tailor their interpretations of biblical passages" for their own purposes as well. I'd bring up some examples, but that would rightfully be considered a hijack and would spin us into other arguments. . .my point is, we all need to interpret the Bible on own. Yes, we have the Church to help us in our understanding (and thank God for that; it's because of the Church that we DO see Christ as divine, his resurrection as real, and the truth of the Gospels as valid), but I, for one, will not be spoon-fed every tiny piece of doctrine dished out for me. (One critical example being the idea that the suffering people in AIDS-torn Africa cannot use condoms to save their own lives. . .that seriously makes me want to puke). I cannot, as a God-fearing Christian, support teachings like that.[/i]

My whole original point is that it is absurd to argue that the Bible promotes homosexuality.
Whether the term "homosexuality" existed, what is today known as homosexual behavior did exist, and is condemned in the passages I have listed. (Men lying with men as with a woman, sodomy, etc.) There is nothing new under the sun in terms of human vices. It is just that now we try to justify them as virtues.
These biological theories you speak of are completely irrelevant to this discussion. It has not been clearly established that homosexuality is biologically determined, and even if it were, that would have no bearing on the morality of human actions.
Some scientists now claim a biological basis for basically all human behavior.
Would you suppose that if St. Paul were up-to-date on all the latest in evolutionary and biological theory, he would be ok with fornication and adultery too?
After all, a lot of secular scientists argue that these things are part of our biological make-up. Monkeys are pretty promiscuous animals, so why whould we act any different?
Based on the behavior of apes, some have concluded that even such things as murder and war are a part of our biological nature.
Should such theories have any bearing on our moral theology?

Human morality is not determined by biology. Man is a spiritual moral creature. As Christians, we are not called to behave like monkeys or rats.
[/quote]

[i]I think you make very good points here. We ARE spiritual, moral creatures and we SHOULD rise above our biology. I guess that does mean that none of us should be fornicating (whether gay or straight). . .but again, where we differ is on this fact: I believe that individuals involved in mature, loving, and respectful homosexual relationships that CAN and oftentimes DO rise above mere biology (read: sexual gratification) just as heterosexuals can and do.[i]


I'm not sure exactly how I'm messing up these posts, but this (below) somehow ended up in the same box with my quotes of Socrates' comments above. So anyway, here are my comments again:

A couple of things:

1. Don't put words in my mouth. I am in no way suggesting that the moral teachings in the Bible be "brushed aside." There is a big difference between totally disregarding Biblical teaching and recognizing that God's wisdom and instruction has been delivered to us via fallible human beings. God built His "C"hurch on the backs of errant apostles and even picked perhaps the weakest of them, Peter, as His foundation. No doubt Christ knew the apostles would make mistakes in the future just as they made mistakes and proved lacking in faith and love while he was still with them. He knew they wouldn't be perfect. So would he have thought the Bible would somehow turn out perfect? I don't think so. Nonetheless, He has trusted us (as long as we have Him by our side) to work out our own salvation. I believe God gave me a mind and a conscience to be able to interpret his Word and to live a moral life. And his instructions to us were so simple: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, all your soul, and all your strength, and love your neighbor as yourself." If we TRULY are doing this, then Socrates, I'm not sure it much matters that you and I disagree on God's opinion of homosexuals.

So what does my perspective on the Bible look like in practice? Well, I look to the Bible for guidance. I try not to sin. I agree that fornication is wrong, so instead of indulging myself whenever I please, I live a chaste life. If I was gay, I would still live a chaste life. I go to Mass everyday; I pray hard everyday; I go to confession at least twice a year; I am active in my church; I try not to kill people . Most importantly, I try to love as God, through Christ, has instructed me to love. This, I think, is what God wants us to focus on. After all, there are far more references in the Bible to love, humility, patience, sacrifice, and faith than there are to issues like homosexuality. There are also a TON more references about the danger and sinfulness of wealth in the New Testament than there are to homosexuality. But does anyone talk about that on this forum? I feel silly going back and forth on this issue for so long, because really, if what we want is to JUDGE someone, we should spend our time judging the rich. Judging by the Bible, it is THEIR salvation that is in serious peril, much more so than the homosexual's. But I guess the issue of wealth isn't as "sexy" as this one; it's not as fun to judge the rich. . .perhaps because in this capitalistic Western society of ours, we ARE the rich.


2. Conservatives "tailor their interpretations of biblical passages" for their own purposes as well. I'd bring up some examples, but that would rightfully be considered a hijack and would spin us into other arguments. . .my point is, we all need to interpret the Bible on own. Yes, we have the Church to help us in our understanding (and thank God for that; it's because of the Church that we DO see Christ as divine, his resurrection as real, and the truth of the Gospels as valid), but I, for one, will not be spoon-fed every tiny piece of doctrine dished out for me. (One critical example being the idea that the suffering people in AIDS-torn Africa cannot use condoms to save their own lives. . .that seriously makes me want to puke). I cannot, as a God-fearing Christian, support teachings like that.

[CoffeeCatholic]

[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. [/quote]


sure, neither does the pope. having homosexual inclinations isn't the sin. The sin(s) is(are) having sex outside of the institution of holy matrimony, which Jesus instituted Himself, leaving no room for editing, and clearly stated it was to be between a man and a woman. As much as I can't have sex with my fiance because we're not married yet, neither could i have sex with a woman because we're not married.

the other sin is perhaps less noticed. Lately, Christians have been feeling compelled to re-write the word of God... and I'm talking all of us. How many times has this issue been brought up by many different "brands" of Christianity? The truth is, because of our sinful nature, we are CONSTANTLY trying to come up with a loop hole to make whatever it is that we want to do, Ok. But anything that we want to do that is outside of the will of God is NEVER ok, no matter if it might be ok later on. That being said, it is not ok for 2 (or 3 or 6) people to have sex, regardless of their gender, outside of marriage, but it IS ok for 2 people to have sex, which glorifies God, inside of marriage. Therefore sex is not bad, but the timing may be. Kinda like how it's perfectly fine to run around your house butt naked normally, but when your in-laws or the boss comes over, you might find it to be a different story. wait until everyone leaves and your fine!

so, regardless of what Leviticus says, even though it is fine and good, Jesus said :"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator `made them male and female,' and said, `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ?So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."(Matt 19:4-6)