(Guest Post) Favouring Same-Sex Marriage
Favouring Same-Sex Marriage by Andreas Saint-Prix
A common argument against same-sex marriage is that of one’s human nature; it’s clear that there is less biological compatibility for intimate relations between two people of the same sex than people of the opposite. Since this is the case, why would people ‘choose’ intimate relations of lesser biological compatibility if they could simply engage in heterosexual relations & engage in the fullness of biological and sexual compatibility? Since people have homosexual relationships, it’s clear that this ‘choice’ is not a choice between two equals, since one is of lesser biological compatibility. Since humans in general strive for what is best, most compatible with their nature—be it physical or spiritual—people would normally not choose a ‘lesser’ form of biological sexual compatibility unless it is precisely what they feel is best for them as individuals. The key in addition to biological sexual compatibility is what the homosexual person feels when it comes to attraction for persons of the same sex. Recent studies show homosexuality is a cerebral disposition, the part of the brain which reacts to sexual arousal and intimacy is similar between homosexual men & heterosexual women, hence the attraction to men. Likewise, it’s similar between homosexual women & heterosexual men, hence the attraction to women. Since this is the case, it’s normal that homosexuals feel attraction for people of the same sex, considering their cerebral disposition.
Some raise a Biblical argument to oppose such relations, but the argument is flawed. In the Old Testament, among a host of other laws, homosexuality was considered deviant, especially since homosexuality wasn’t conducive for procreation, which was the primary objective of sexual relations. Reproduction was essential to continue the life of the tribe or nation. In the New Testament in Romans where Paul seems to talk about homosexuality, the passage clearly shows that Paul had no scientifically based knowledge to understand what homosexuality is. He associated it with lust, that people ‘leave’ the heterosexual state to ‘become’ homosexuals. We know today that this isn’t the case. There may always be cases where heterosexuals dabble in homosexuality, but in such cases, we can consider it sexual immorality or fornication, and heterosexuals also may engage in sexual immorality or fornication within the domain of heterosexuality.
We may also say that homosexuals that engage in homosexual relationships just for pleasure without love, that is just as morally wrong as heterosexual relationships that are engaged without love. The issue is homosexuality as being a cerebral disposition scientifically confirmed by brain scientists. In either case, the biblical arguments fall through & are useless. We should accept the reality of the love lived by homosexuals even if it’s biologically less compatible that between heterosexuals and accept the love lived between homosexuals. Love, "eros," which is a type of love specifically demonstrated in sexual intimacy is important for human development. 1 John 4: 8 tells us that God is Love. If we refuse homosexuals the right to love like heterosexuals, we are not just refusing them love, we are refusing them God, and how unchristian can one get than to refuse God to people?
Another fallacious argument used against same-sex marriage is that same-sex marriage will undermine heterosexual marriage & family. As if allowing same-sex marriage will be the cause of weakening of heterosexual marriage. A heterosexual will decide to marry or not regardless of the personal decisions of homosexuals. A heterosexual will not marry a homosexual just because homosexuals will have the right to marry as well.
The question that always comes with same-sex marriage is the question of homopaternality. While one may assume that it’s every parent’s right to desire children, one has to also consider the development of the child. Would a child grow up in a parental environment to develop sound psychological capabilities? Experts say that what’s important in homoparental relationships is that the child has adults of the opposite sex of the parents in his close environment, so that the child can mature psychologically to the best of his abilities. This however needs to be followed on a case by case basis by the social services. One argument that is also wrongly used is that acceptance of homosexuality will lead inevitably to other forms of ‘deviant’ sexual relations, such as pedophilia, bestiality, and polygamy & this is a wrong argument for all three.
Firstly for pedophilia, it’s clear that real love cannot be lived between an adult and a child, as the child isn’t physically & psychologically mature to understand love in it’s sexual & intimate expression, likewise the adult who wishes to engage in sexuality with children has clearly a psychological impediment, as he doesn’t realize this incompatibility, or if he does, his pulsion overrides his reason, which makes him just as much a potential danger. Pedophilia is therefore refutable.
Secondly, we can see how since sexual intimacy is what is most intimately shared between two people, for bestiality the case is that when a person would engage in acts of a sexual nature with an animal, it would reduce his human nature to that of an animal nature insomuch as concerns the sexual relation itself. Since the nature of something cannot be elevated to that which it is not, clearly the nature of the animal cannot be elevated to that of the human. Simply put, bestiality is naturally inhuman, therefore it is refutable.
Thirdly, for polygamy, this is more a question of a psychologically immature conception of love. As true love is shared equally between two persons, if one of the partners has more than one spouse, there would be an imbalance in the love lived & expressed between all the persons married together. If all the partners would have an equal number of married partners, this can be considered as love which is not lived to its full potential between two people. Polygamy is hence also refuted.
In closing, we Christians should move to accepting same-sex marriage & the love lived between two adults of the same sex, as no argument to my knowledge can refute the case.
Andreas Saint-Prix
I just want to express my appreciation to Andreas for this post. While a newer reader here, Andreas has contributed to a number of recent topics, and I would like to extend the invitation to any of you who would like to move beyond only commenting, should you be interested in writing a Post. However, just so we are all aware, the views represented in this, or in any past or future post by a Guest, do not necessarily reflect my own.
K.
Wow Kelly, your readers are smarter than you are. Good post, and I’ll say it till I die, Paul wasn’t talking about the ancient equivalent of Gays. He was talking about (probably straight guys) getting hammered, hanging each other, raping other guys and killing. In general not your average night out with the homos.
All around great post.
Comment by David Malcolm — February 1, 2008 @ 7:14 pm
In my view the church should not move towards condoning homosexual activity. This is because of an understanding of the purpose of sexuality found in the Bible. God regularly refers to his people as his wife. I would suggest that rather than use a convenient metaphor, marriage, which happened to arise in humanity, God deliberately designed the human sexual experience to provide a metaphor by which God’s people could gain more understanding of their correct relationship with himself. This equation of sexual practice with worship practices results in several parallels. Bestiality becomes comparable with idolatry because the partner is not worthy or appropriate for a sexual relationship; polygamy becomes comparable to polytheism, because one’s worship or sexual expression is divided between several beings; and homosexuality becomes comparable to the worship of people, because the partner is similar to the participant. Like all metaphors, this one breaks down eventually, because unlike God, husbands are fallible, sinful, etc. Still, this position is supported by the lists of banned cultic and sexual practices set down in the Old Testament and which continued to be practiced in the New Testament-era church.
The post also did not account for Jesus’ teachings on marriage found in Matthew 19:4-6 and its parallel passage, Mark 10:6-9. These teach seven characteristics that are to be sought in a Christian marriage, consisting of unity; exclusivity; lifelong commitment; public recognition; monogamy; sexual expression; and heterosexuality. Substitute the last characteristic with the relationship’s being between a person and God, and you have an excellent description of the life to which God has called his people throughout the Bible.
Comment by Theophilus — February 1, 2008 @ 9:19 pm
Hi,Kelly. Regarding Davids comment, I wouldn’t say your readers are smarter than you are. I would say, however, that you are a lot more patient than I am. I would not lend my column to anyone who writes in support of something which God calls, very unequivocably, an abomination. No matter how well-written.
Comment by Kate — February 2, 2008 @ 9:45 am
Thanks for the reply Kate, I’d think it’d be more appropriate to say that considering homosexuality an abomination is your interpretation of God, considering that you seem to interpret what Christians call the Word of God (The Bible) at the first degree. To take individual interpretations and assume them to be universal truths (especially when using the concept of God) is very unfortunate and people may assume one doing so as having a fundamentalist attitude. One may accept your viewpoint however narrow it may be, in the future however, I’d propose that you make a difference between your private interpretation regarding God with regards to what can be understood about Him from other religious or non-religious perspectives. Thanks.
Comment by Andreas Saint-Prix — February 2, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
Hi Theophilus. Thanks for your comment. You did make some interesting comments. Regarding the Gospels and homosexuality, there is really only one occasion when the subject is brought up. I noticed that you refer to Jesus & marriage in your comment. I didn’t find it necessary, but I will add a couple things regarding this particular issue. When Jesus heals the “servant” of the Centurion. The Greek word used in the Gospels refers neither to a “servant” nor a “son”, many theologians agree that this was a case of pederasty, which was very common in Greek & Latin culture at the time. We see that Jesus in no way condemns the possible relationship, instead, Jesus marvels at the faith of the Centurion, & the “servant” is healed. One can’t make a case either for or against homosexuality regarding this passage, but at least we can see that there is no outright condemnation by Jesus regarding what could be interpreted as pederasty. Regarding the passages in the Gospels referring to marriage, it’s clear that Jesus is referring to the generalized norm, which is heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriage wasn’t an issue at the time, which is why one shouldn’t be concerned that the evangelists didn’t mention Jesus talking about it. My belief is that if Jesus was among us today in person, he’d favor homosexual marriage, that is my interpretation regarding how I have come to know Christ through the gospels. Jesus as being a loving, compassionate person, willing to champion in favor of the outcasts & underdogs of society. If one can understand the cultural, historical & social context in which the Bible was written, we can understand the passages which refer to human sexuality & marriage. Seeing that we live in a different cultural, historical & social context, we need to prayerfully & carefully reevaluate Scripture & Tradition in light of what we can know & understand today. My position is that contemporary reevaluation of Christian Scripture & Tradition leads us to accept the love that homosexuals live & the need to recognize that love by allowing homosexual marriage which, other than the gender difference, shouldn’t be considered any different than heterosexual marriage.
Comment by Andreas Saint-Prix — February 2, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
In 1991, neuroanatomist, Simon LeVay, published an article in the respected journal, ‘Science’. It reported his finding that a localized cluster (a “nucleus”) of cells in the brains of “homosexual” men was twice as large by volume on autopsy as in “heterosexual” men.But what the pro homosexual conduct folks don’t say is that the study also went on to say,in this particular study the definitions of homosexual and heterosexual were extremely imprecise, nor was there any way of verifying the sexual orientation, as the subjects were dead.
But this was not the first such discovery. One year before a group reported in ‘Brain Research’ that they had found a similar difference in both volume and number of cells in a different brain nucleus. The media did not report this first study because ‘Brain Research’, unlike ‘Science’, is read only by neuroscientists. And in contrast to journalists, the neuroscientists themselves genuinely understood the research and its limitations, and saw no reason to make grand pronouncements.
More recently, yet another difference in another part of the brain was reported, also in a prestigious publication, ‘the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America’. This study claimed that a difference between male homosexuals and heterosexuals was found in the anterior commissure, a structure that divides the left and right halves of the brain. The authors found that the anterior commissure was larger in women and homosexual men than in heterosexual men. This was a group statistical difference, however: the size of the anterior commissure in 27 of the 30 homosexual men actually fell within the range of sizes found among the 30 heterosexual men. As did LeVay, these authors used brain samples obtained preponderantly from men who died of AIDS, introducing another uncontrolled variable into their work. The science is at its best inconclusive.
You said that Paul had no scientifically based knowledge to understand what homosexuality is . True Paul was no scientist, probably not but being the most prolific author in the Bible he did know deviance and sin. Are we really refusing homosexuals the love of God? No, By their participation in the homosexual act are they not choosing to refuse God on their own. God allows man to sin. The punishment is in the fact that man finds sin attractive and pleasurable and can lose himself in it. Then sin becomes the God of the sinner.
You wrote, “.. for pedophilia, it’s clear that real love cannot be lived between an adult and a child. In antiquity and in other cultures, same-sex “unions” have been primarily between older men and younger boys and were not considered family relationships of equals. According to sociologist, Henning Bech, the idea of same-sex bonds
comparable to heterosexual unions is a modern concept”. Beck goes on to say “No society in the history of the world has recognized same-sex bonds as comparable to a marriage of male and female”. Bech, H. (1999). When men meet: Homosexuality and modernity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. But if what you say is true please explain the group, Men and Boy Lovers Association that proposes exactly what you say can’t happen.
In answer to “Homopaternality.. is one argument that is also wrongly used is that acceptance of homosexuality will lead inevitably to other forms of ‘deviant’ sexual relations, such as pedophilia, bestiality, and polygamy”. Please consider, Golombok, S. & Tasker, F. (1996)study, ‘Do parents influence the sexual orientation of their children?
Findings from a longitudinal study of lesbian families’ published in ‘Developmental Psychology’.32, 3-11. This study demonstrates that there may be differences in the sexual identity of girls reared by lesbians. “Daughters of lesbian headed households are more likely to experiment with homosexual behavior and may be somewhat more likely to experience same-sex attraction than those girls reared in comparable straight mother homes”.
I found it interesting when you responded to a comment with, “To take individual interpretations and assume them to be universal truths (especially when using the concept of God) is very unfortunate and people may assume one doing so as having a fundamentalist attitude”. ..” that individual interpretations and assume them to be universal truths is not correct”. Please consider the universal Church, which is the Catholic Church has always held that Scripture is to be interpretated in light of the universal Teaching authority of the Church.
Please offer citations on this statement, “When Jesus heals the “servant” of the Centurion. The Greek word used in the Gospels refers neither to a “servant” nor a “son”, many theologians agree that this was a case of pederasty..
Comment by Chris Roper — February 2, 2008 @ 8:35 pm
Andreas, it often seems to be that when we want to sin, our guilt causes us to twist and turn the passages in the Bible, so that they do not apply, or are seem silent, on what it is we want to do…. Might work in this world, won’t in the next. I would urge prayer and discernment, a gift of the Holy Spirit. Not to justify our sins, but to repent and change. It is amazing to me, how much Jesus will help, cleanse and teach the person who has asked Him into his heart. We all have much to learn. However, changing what Gods Word says, so that we may sin comfortably is rather hypocritical. I could at least understand the person who wants to sin, but does not claim that Gods word is allright with that. Lets get honest here. Kate
Comment by Kate — February 2, 2008 @ 8:51 pm
Andreas Wrote: A common argument against same-sex marriage is that of one’s human nature; it’s clear that there is less biological compatibility for intimate relations between two people of the same sex than people of the opposite. Since this is the case, why would people ‘choose’ intimate relations of lesser biological compatibility if they could simply engage in heterosexual relations & engage in the fullness of biological and sexual compatibility? Since people have homosexual relationships, it’s clear that this ‘choice’ is not a choice between two equals, since one is of lesser biological compatibility. Since humans in general strive for what is best, most compatible with their nature—be it physical or spiritual—people would normally not choose a ‘lesser’ form of biological sexual compatibility unless it is precisely what they feel is best for them as individuals. The key in addition to biological sexual compatibility is what the homosexual person feels when it comes to attraction for persons of the same sex. Recent studies show homosexuality is a cerebral disposition, the part of the brain which reacts to sexual arousal and intimacy is similar between homosexual men & heterosexual women, hence the attraction to men. Likewise, it’s similar between homosexual women & heterosexual men, hence the attraction to women. Since this is the case, it’s normal that homosexuals feel attraction for people of the same sex, considering their cerebral disposition.
Richard: You seem to want to say that homosexuality, as a cerebral disposition, is right and natural for people who are so disposed. But the physiology of the brain is itself effected in very dramatic ways by what people think and do. And even if it could be established that the cerebral disposition is was present before any cultural influence that might have lured the individual into homosexual activity, that doesn’t give it any moral justification. After all, many of the worst criminals are psychopaths, and much of the psychopathology associated with their crime could be traced back to chemical or neurological irregularities in the brain. That may have bearing on their personal culpability, but not on the morality of their criminal activity. To claim that homosexuality can be related to a cerebral disposition is simply to say that it is the sexuality associated with a certain kind of brain abnormality. I found a site on the web which also associates schizophrenia with a cerebral disposition.
Andreas Wrote:Some raise a Biblical argument to oppose such relations, but the argument is flawed. In the Old Testament, among a host of other laws, homosexuality was considered deviant, especially since homosexuality wasn’t conducive for procreation, which was the primary objective of sexual relations. Reproduction was essential to continue the life of the tribe or nation. In the New Testament in Romans where Paul seems to talk about homosexuality,…
Richard: I marvel at your presumption. You know just what G-d had in mind. Christian tradition, informed as it is by the Holy Spirit and represented by the great genius of men such St. Paul, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas—they all got it wrong. You finally got it right after two thousand years.
In Genesis, sexuality is explained as the physical reunification into one flesh of man and woman, who were originally one flesh. The unitive aspect of human sexuality is emphasized. In the Bible, the sexual relationship between a man and a human is primarily the physical expression of an I-Thou experience in which they discover their primal unity (Woman—Eve—was taken from the body of man, who recognized her as “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” [Genesis 2:23] when G-d presented her to him.) Procreation is not the purpose of sexual union. It is the occasional effect of sexual union. (A married couple may have two children—two fertile sexual experiences– in the course of fifty years of marital intimacy.) G-d made woman not so that Adam could procreate. That could certainly have been arranged to happen some other way. There are plenty of examples of alternatives in the biosphere. G-d made woman so that Adam would not be alone: “Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” (Genesis 2:18)
Andreas Wrote: …the passage clearly shows that Paul had no scientifically based knowledge to understand what homosexuality is. He associated it with lust, that people ‘leave’ the heterosexual state to ‘become’ homosexuals. We know today that this isn’t the case. There may always be cases where heterosexuals dabble in homosexuality, but in such cases, we can consider it sexual immorality or fornication, and heterosexuals also may engage in sexual immorality or fornication within the domain of heterosexuality.
Richard: Scientific knowledge of compulsive stealing doesn’t justify stealing. Scientific knowledge of compulsive pedophilia doesn’t justify pedophilia. We disapprove of them and punish them while, at the same time, recognizing that those who are for some scientifically discernable reason compelled to do those things should be treated with compassion and provided with therapy. Homosexuality is no different. Moreover, you are completely ignoring the cultural factor. Most children don’t steal. But if they had classes in which they were told that stealing is just another way of life, no worse and no better than being honest, you can be sure that a far greater number of children will end up stealing. Homosexuality is a moral evil, and moral evils can be profoundly attractive. Unresisted, they turn into addictions and compulsions. That’s the concept of slavery to sin. When a culture teaches that a moral evil is perfectly okay, it undermines resistance to it. Is it no wonder, then, that it overtakes so many?
Andreas wrote: We may also say that homosexuals that engage in homosexual relationships just for pleasure without love, that is just as morally wrong as heterosexual relationships that are engaged without love.
Richard: No. The one is natural, the other unnatural. You cannot accept homosexuality without chucking the entire concept of natural law and Biblical moral teachings.
Andreas wrote: The issue is homosexuality as being a cerebral disposition scientifically confirmed by brain scientists.
Richard: All that does link homosexuality to a cerebral abnormality.
Andreas: In either case, the biblical arguments fall through & are useless. We should accept the reality of the love lived by homosexuals even if it’s biologically less compatible that between heterosexuals and accept the love lived between homosexuals.
Richard: Brothers and sisters also love each other. Mothers and sons, fathers and daughters also love each other. But most all of humanity realizes that they sin most profoundly in giving sexual expression to their love. When two men love each other, that’s wonderful. But if they give sexual expression to that love, they sin most gravely.
Andreas wrote: Love, “eros,” which is a type of love specifically demonstrated in sexual intimacy is important for human development. 1 John 4: 8 tells us that God is Love. If we refuse homosexuals the right to love like heterosexuals, we are not just refusing them love, we are refusing them God, and how unchristian can one get than to refuse God to people?
Richard: The love of G-d is caritas, not eros. Besides, sexuality is not love, it is at best an expression of love. A person who is denied sexual expression is not denied the ability to love.
Adreas Wrote: Another fallacious argument used against same-sex marriage is that same-sex marriage will undermine heterosexual marriage & family. As if allowing same-sex marriage will be the cause of weakening of heterosexual marriage. A heterosexual will decide to marry or not regardless of the personal decisions of homosexuals. A heterosexual will not marry a homosexual just because homosexuals will have the right to marry as well.
Richard: It undermines the concept of marriage and the Biblical understanding of sexuality. It can have a profoundly erosive effect on the moral and culture foundations of marriage.
Andreas wrote: The question that always comes with same-sex marriage is the question of homopaternality. While one may assume that it’s every parent’s right to desire children, one has to also consider the development of the child. Would a child grow up in a parental environment to develop sound psychological capabilities? Experts say that what’s important in homoparental relationships is that the child has adults of the opposite sex of the parents in his close environment, so that the child can mature psychologically to the best of his abilities. This however needs to be followed on a case by case basis by the social services.
Richard: This is the conventional wisdom. It has always been recognized that having a mother is very important to the normal development of a child. The burden of proof is not on those who believe this, but on those who claim otherwise.
Adreas wrote: One argument that is also wrongly used is that acceptance of homosexuality will lead inevitably to other forms of ‘deviant’ sexual relations, such as pedophilia, bestiality, and polygamy & this is a wrong argument for all three.
Richard: The reason is that homosexuality cannot be accepted without destroying the foundations of sexual morality in the western world.
Andreas wrote: Firstly for pedophilia, it’s clear that real love cannot be lived between an adult and a child, as the child isn’t physically & psychologically mature to understand love in it’s sexual & intimate expression, likewise the adult who wishes to engage in sexuality with children has clearly a psychological impediment, as he doesn’t realize this incompatibility, or if he does, his pulsion overrides his reason, which makes him just as much a potential danger. Pedophilia is therefore refutable.
Richard: It’s not hard to justify pedophilia with the same sort of specious arguments you use to justify homosexuality: Historically there is precedent for child brides. And if a man truly loves a child, and children are brought up to accept the sexual act as something normal, pedipholia might be portrayed as the ultimate caress that provides a child with a deep sense of being loved, a sense of being loved that touches her in the deepest possible way. And isn’t a child’s knowing she is loved the single most important thing for a child’s mental health?
Andreas wrote: Secondly, we can see how since sexual intimacy is what is most intimately shared between two people, for bestiality the case is that when a person would engage in acts of a sexual nature with an animal, it would reduce his human nature to that of an animal nature insomuch as concerns the sexual relation itself. Since the nature of something cannot be elevated to that which it is not, clearly the nature of the animal cannot be elevated to that of the human. Simply put, bestiality is naturally inhuman, therefore it is refutable.
Richard: It’s not hard to justify beastiality with the same sort of specious arguments you use to justify homosexuality: But experts know that animals can often bring out a person’s ability to love. They are extensively used in various therapeutic frameworks for that very reason. Since sexuality is a normal expression of human love, why shouldn’t such a person be encouraged to explore the sexual dimension of his love for one of G-d’s beloved creatures? Why should he be required to hold himself back? After all, sexuality is a form of self giving, and why shouldn’t a person give himself with love even to a lower creature? We are lower creatures than G-d, and yet He gives himself to us—He even died for us. Indeed, giving oneself over completely to a lower creature is the very apex of love, for it is more like G-d’s love than any other. I had dogs in mind, but cats, birds (parakeets), even salamanders and snakes—if you really love your pet, then you’ll want to express your love in a sexual way, and why not? Physical incompatibility doesn’t mean anything—you’ll find a way. After all, homosexuals are physically incompatible and they find a way. Besides, if a person is really lonely, and has no other outlet for his love, how can we deny him the right to love his pet? As you wrote,
Andreas: “Love, “eros,” which is a type of love specifically demonstrated in sexual intimacy is important for human development. 1 John 4: 8 tells us that God is Love. God is Love. If we refuse homosexuals the right to love like heterosexuals, we are not just refusing them love, we are refusing them God, and how unchristian can one get than to refuse God to people?”
Richard: If a person truly loves his pet and is committed to his pet, how can we say that he cannot give sexual expression to his love. “G-d is Love” Denying him the right to have an erotic relationship with his parakeet is to refuse him G-d, and that would be unchristian. Beastiality is forbidden because G-d forbids it. It is an abomination. The Bible says so and the Church says so. No arguments.
Andreas wrote: Thirdly, for polygamy, this is more a question of a psychologically immature conception of love. As true love is shared equally between two persons, if one of the partners has more than one spouse, there would be an imbalance in the love lived & expressed between all the persons married together. If all the partners would have an equal number of married partners, this can be considered as love which is not lived to its full potential between two people. Polygamy is hence also refuted.
Richard: It’s not hard to justify polygamy with the same sort of specious arguments you use to justify homosexuality: In many cultures, polygamy is accepted. The patriarchs of the Bible were polygamous, even though they were great saints. A person who truly loves, loves all people. Why shouldn’t a man be able to love more than one woman? And, indeed, why shouldn’t a truly loving woman be able to love more than one man, and give sexual expression to her love. That’s only normal, isn’t it. So just as homosexuality is okay, polygamy and even polyandry should be okay.
Andreas Wrote: In closing, we Christians should move to accepting same-sex marriage & the love lived between two adults of the same sex, as no argument to my knowledge can refute the case.
Richard: You completely disregard the authority of Sacred Tradition, as though there were no tradition of moral teaching, as though a Christian were free to base his morality entirely upon what seemed reasonable to him. For every argument there is a counter argument. Where people rely on their own reason to establish moral norms, the result is moral chaos because people will not agree on the validity of the arguments and because moral norms cannot be held with unconditional conviction by anyone on the basis of reason alone. It would be irrational, for there is no rational basis for excluding the possibility of an argument arising that might refute it. And where moral norms are questioned or questionable, self-sacrificing obedience to those norms in moments of temptation is practically excluded. “Why give this “forbidden” pleasure? Maybe it’s okay after all. It certainly looks good to me right now!”
Richard
Comment by Richard — February 3, 2008 @ 2:49 am
Hi Richard. Thanks for your reply.
I might just remark 2 points that are essential:
1.) One can’t reduce homosexuality to a purely sexual act, it is first & foremost love lived between 2 people of the same sex which is expressed through sexual intimacy, the same as for heterosexuals.
2.) The case for homosexual marriage implies a relationship between 2 physically & psychologically mature adults, which is not the case for pedophilia nor bestiality, I find the argument in my post to be conclusive in this regard.
Comment by Andreas Saint-Prix — February 3, 2008 @ 10:18 am
Andreas, two points I think you should address regarding Richard’s comments.
-the genetic predisposition towards homosexuality (which while not scientifically conclusive I am happy to concede) does not demand a moral justification of certain behaviours…
-that certain Biblical passages previously believed to speak to the issue of homosexuality in a condemning matter can now be interpreted in a different light (the Sodom story for example) does not in itself lend to an endorsement of a particular behaviour
K.
Comment by K. — February 4, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
Hi K. I’ll just comment on your comments.
Firstly, I was referring to a cerebral predisposition to same-sex attraction, not a genetic one. Unless you refer to genetic as similar to ‘genesis’ as in something relating to or determined by the origin, development, or causal antecedents. Anyway, the moral justification for homosexual marriage comes from the mutual love lived by the two in question.
Secondly, I’m not endorsing homosexuality based on Biblical passages, but on the mutual love lived by the two in question, regardless of what the Bible may or may not say. As Christians, love should be the guiding principal for judging what is morally correct or not.
Comment by Andreas Saint-Prix — February 7, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
>I’m not endorsing homosexuality based on Biblical passages, but on the mutual love lived by the two in question, regardless of what the Bible may or may not say. As Christians, love should be the guiding principal for judging what is morally correct or not.
Chris I am not sure what’s going on here. This happened last time you posted also and I had to re-edit it. People who are responding to you here think that what you have written is your own thought. I realize that as it was said by Andreas you are only trying to respond, but it makes it confusing as I am sure you realize…
K.
Comment by Chris Roper — February 8, 2008 @ 8:11 pm
Hi Chris, I disagree with you. The guiding principal for judging what is morally correct or not for Christians should be the Bible. Love however, should be the guiding principal for how we treat others, regardless of their moral behavior.
Comment by Colleen — February 9, 2008 @ 5:13 am
Wow, someone who makes sense! Colleen, I agree with you completely! If the Bible isn’t our guiding principal for our behaviour, and a feeling is, why not just call ourselves something other than Christian? Kate
Comment by Kate — February 9, 2008 @ 11:28 am
Regarding one’s decision to base one’s principals on what one considers to be a holy book, it’s fine for the individual concerned, but it will be difficult to use it as an argument to those who don’t have the same beliefs. In the same way that one man’s prophet is another man’s nut case, one man’s sacred writ is another man’s toilet paper (remember Guantanamo & Abu Ghraib)? Regardless if these events were factual or not, the case remains the same. If those opposing same-sex marriage don’t want to see all of Western civilization accepting same-sex marriage within a decade or two, they need to find arguments that can be accepted by the majority of individuals.
Comment by Andreas Saint-Prix — February 10, 2008 @ 3:39 am
You know what I never understood? Why ignorant straight people feel a need to come up with all these arguments but never seem to run them by a REAL gay person to ask them “What do you think of my arguments.” It’s like we’re something to be talked about, but not engaged with.
I used to be more interested in engaging with intelligent people who due to their lack of knowledge actually believed the Bible somehow was meant to club gay people with. As the years have worn on, and it’s really only been two years now, three at most, I’ve grown entirely sick of dealing with people who have such a strong need to invalidate a group of people to rationalize how God must somehow love them more He loves me.
Honestly, that’s the only reason to decide God somehow finds gays disgusting, which is really what the word abomination means (though in the OT specifically it’s used almost exclusively to describe things that God finds disgusting in a worshipy sense, like I dono the fertility cults he was disgusted with that used male prostitutes?) is to pretend that somehow you’re universally better than someone else, and more deserving of God’s love. As soon as you surrender your arrogance on this subject, and open up to the fact that God may cherish and love the people that you in your arrogance look down upon, you will be able to give up your ignorance. Until then, thankfully God’s grace extends both to you, and to me.
Comment by David Malcolm — February 14, 2008 @ 8:50 pm
God loves us all the same, David. He doesn’t love one group more than another, and no one has ever said that. What He does expect is that we live decent, moral lives within the framework of His word. And yes, abomination is what he called practising homosexuality. He said, “When a man lies with a man as with a woman,”, there is nothing there about rape, or prostitution, or any other criminal thing. God puts His expectations down clearly. We do not have to imagine that when He says this, He is talking about worship or anything else. If He was, He would have made that clear. Do what you will, as human beings have always done, but don’t manipulate the Word of God. It isn’t right, or honest.
Comment by Kate — February 15, 2008 @ 6:10 am
Hi Kate, when “God said” that homosexuality is an abomination, do you think that God also said that we should stone adulterers & adulteresses to death? Perhaps these biblical prescriptions were just man’s perception of morality at the time, & bringing God in the picture hence allowed greater authoritative power from the lawmakers at that time.
Comment by Andreas Saint-Prix — February 20, 2008 @ 1:07 pm