Homosexuality

[aspen]

now do you want to answer the question, foreigner?

 

[KingJ]

is it ever right to withhold love from someone because of sin?

I don't think you are a Christian if you can't love anyone living. Sin or no sin. The issue is....The saved bring love with light. The unsaved bring love with darkness. The unsaved don't like the light. Hence we get persecuted. Hence some of us feel the need to dim or hide our light. Which is not going to help as we just may get stuck in darkness too.

Is that what you propose Aspen? We must dim or turn off the light?

 

[Foreigner]

now do you want to answer the question, foreigner?

-- Of course. It is absolutely never right to withhold love from someone because of sin.

And again, not supporting homosexual marraige is not 'withholding love' from someone.

 

[Raeneske]

Sometimes the arguement is brought up, that if two homosexuals love each other, what's wrong with that?

It's simply a perversion, no one will deny whether you love it or not. There are straight people who love others as well. It's not love that's the issue. It's what you're doing that's the issue.

"I love her, so I'm going to fornicate with her". You may love her, but your judgment is very off. It's the same for a homosexual. They love the person, but they still want to marry them, and pervert the sacred marriage bonds. It's shameful for both the straight man, and the homosexual, it is a sin, that both must put away with. Or lets say if a Christian wants to marry an atheist. That is incredibly unwise. More times than not, it will cause your faith to falter in some areas. But that's neither here nor there.

What I'm saying is, you still have to repent, even if the homosexual claims to love their partner, or if the straight woman or man loves their mate and fornicates. You are still sinning.

That's not the best picture I've drawn, but I just thought I'd share that little bit.

 

[aspen]

-- Of course. It is absolutely never right to withhold love from someone because of sin.

And again, not supporting homosexual marraige is not 'withholding love' from someone.

agreed

 

[marksman]

That's not the best picture I've drawn, but I just thought I'd share that little bit.

I will give it an A+ for the simple reason that homosexuals in general think that theirs is the only sin that we are concerned with and they are a special case, whereas in fact they are no different to the heterosexual as described by you and the required response is just the same.

is it ever right to withhold love from someone because of sin?

According to scripture it is. In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul told the church to deliver a man to satan for the destruction of his flesh because of his sex with his mother and they were told not to associate with certain people or eat with them. In other words, shun them.

And again, not supporting homosexual marraige is not 'withholding love' from someone.

That is one of the problems we face. Because of their emotional dysfunction, they have this idea that if you disagree with them you hate them and this idea is fuelled by the main stream media because their reporting of all things homosexual designate anyone who disagrees with them as being "homophobic" which is a complete lie.

But when has the main stream media been interested in the truth if it ruins a good story.

 

[justaname]

I will give it an A+ for the simple reason that homosexuals in general think that theirs is the only sin that we are concerned with and they are a special case, whereas in fact they are no different to the heterosexual as described by you and the required response is just the same.



According to scripture it is. In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul told the church to deliver a man to satan for the destruction of his flesh because of his sex with his mother and they were told not to associate with certain people or eat with them. In other words, shun them.



That is one of the problems we face. Because of their emotional dysfunction, they have this idea that if you disagree with them you hate them and this idea is fuelled by the main stream media because their reporting of all things homosexual designate anyone who disagrees with them as being "homophobic" which is a complete lie.

But when has the main stream media been interested in the truth if it ruins a good story.

To speak to the 1 Corinthians passage a bit.

1 Corinthians 5:4-5

4 In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus,

5 I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Paul through the authority of his apostleship made the loving decision needed for both the congregation and the individual. This decision was made so that his spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus, and so the leaven of wickedness may not leaven the whole lump . Love is and always was the conduit in which the decision was made. It is not that with holding love is what is decided rather like God when dealing with the nation of Israel, he gave him over to evil so that he might come to repentance. Paul prayed for all the congregations he established putting a hedge of protection as it were around those he pastored over. In this case the man was removed from the congregation so the congregation may not be spoiled and in hope for the man to come to repentance. This is a great lesson on judgement and how to properly apply it. There is no need to judge those outside the church, this is for God to do. (1Corinthians 5:12-13) But we also are not to associate with a so-called brother in the congregation. This is not with holding love rather it is love we are showing by stating we are not supporting, enabling, or condoning their sin. This may be one of the hardest things to do because the one ostracized may feel like you do not love them, but it is the loving thing to do. Whenever this needs to happen it is best to give a thorough explanation to all involved with the hope that the offending party may be broken of their sinful pride and arrogance that holds to the sin in question.

 

[mjrhealth]

y stating we are not supporting, enabling, or condoning their sin

I guess Jesus must of being the greatest fool of all, spent most of His time with the "sinners" and being condmend by the pharisees for doing so while He continually told the pharisees off for their self righteousness. You will only ever know the Love of Christ when you truly get to know Him, than you wont run around calling everyone else sinners. Because you will truly understand what Jesus has done for "ALL MEN"

In All His Love

 

[justaname]

I guess Jesus must of being the greatest fool of all, spent most of His time with the "sinners" and being condmend by the pharisees for doing so while He continually told the pharisees off for their self righteousness. You will only ever know the Love of Christ when you truly get to know Him, than you wont run around calling everyone else sinners. Because you will truly understand what Jesus has done for "ALL MEN"

In All His Love

So are you saying Paul was wrong in his decision?

 

[mjrhealth]

As Jesus said,

"You wont come to Me so I can give you etternal Life". If you dont know Jesus than you will never understand His Love. And I dont mean "about Him".

In all His Love

 

[justaname]

As Jesus said,

"You wont come to Me so I can give you etternal Life". If you dont know Jesus than you will never understand His Love. And I dont mean "about Him".

In all His Love

So are you saying Paul didn't know Jesus?

Totally unrelated to my response to you mjrhealth, I found this while researching for a different thread and found it most interesting. I should make the disclaimer that I do not condone homosexual activity and I side with traditional marriage, but I did find this to be an interesting read as it shows a relevant and humanistic side of the story. I can say I would shake this man's hand.

http://theforgivenessproject.com/stories/peter-tatchell-england/

 

[dragonfly]

Hi justaname,

The problem with Peter Tatchell's article, is the way it overlooks the first and second commandments. He does not acknowledge that sodomy is rooted in idolatry, nor, that is it not Christians who are intolerant of sodomy, but God, who, after all humanistic reconciliations, still will have the final say.

 

[justaname]

Hi justaname,

The problem with Peter Tatchell's article, is the way it overlooks the first and second commandments. He does not acknowledge that sodomy is rooted in idolatry, nor, that is it not Christians who are intolerant of sodomy, but God, who, after all humanistic reconciliations, still will have the final say.

I was only posting this to give some perspective of the other side of the argument, again I do not condone the practice of homosexuality nor can I speak against the judgment of God. Yes homosexuals will be judged by God, and so will murdering Christians.

Any attempt to hold a Gentile though to the Law though is ridiculous, Jews in any time have never done that. The Law was given to Hebrews for Hebrews, not all of humanity. This is not to say Gentiles are not held to judgement, Romans 1:18-32 (fitting for this thread) only that they are a law unto themselves. Romans 2:14

Christians are not even held to the Law in it's former respect, although we are not antinomians because we are held to the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus also known as the law of liberty.
Colossians 2:14 Ephesians 2:14-16 1Corinthians 6:12 James 1:25 Romans 8:2 1Peter 2:16 Galatians 2:4-5 John 8:31-32

 

[aspen]

Justaname - I totally agree. Trying to make your point, however, is futile in this environment. Many people here refuse to even acknowledge that another perspective exists.

 

[mjrhealth]

justaname,

for what ever reason Paul did what he did. The disciples where human beings like you and me, they where not perfect no matter how christians try to make them out to be, if they where Jesus would not of said to Peter.' get thee behind me satan", Peter would not have denied Jesus 3 times, and they would not have made silly statements like telling women to wear a covering over there head. You and I have no right by any stretch of the imagination to judge anyone, and when you tell someone they are going to go to hell, than you have judged them and found them guilty, you have no right to do so, that is reserved solely for Jesus, so remember this, next time you call someone a sinner. or tell someone they are going to hell, it is not them who have sinned against you, it is you that have sinned against them, and I hope they can forgive you.

In All His Love

 

[justaname]

justaname,

for what ever reason Paul did what he did. The disciples where human beings like you and me, they where not perfect no matter how christians try to make them out to be, if they where Jesus would not of said to Peter.' get thee behind me satan", Peter would not have denied Jesus 3 times, and they would not have made silly statements like telling women to wear a covering over there head. You and I have no right by any stretch of the imagination to judge anyone, and when you tell someone they are going to go to hell, than you have judged them and found them guilty, you have no right to do so, that is reserved solely for Jesus, so remember this, next time you call someone a sinner. or tell someone they are going to hell, it is not them who have sinned against you, it is you that have sinned against them, and I hope they can forgive you.

In All His Love

Thank you for your post, and let me say I do agree with most of what you said. Please don't think I am attempting to antagonize you by my questions and prodding, I am not. I honestly appreciate your stance, and personally I hold one very similar to yours myself. Let me inform you of where I am coming from though so maybe you can better appreciate the nuance of my point of view.

I take a very high view of scripture, meaning I believe the scriptures are God breathed, inspired by none other than God Himself. It is true the agents used in writing the scriptures were imperfect men, but the scriptures themselves are our highest source of tangible authority, and they are without error. Some may say, "but there are contradictions in the Bible, there that is proof the Bible is not completely true." I say our limited human capacity must be in error in our interpretation, not the Bible being in error. Yes the Bible is written by many different authors so you can read into it different personalities in the different books. Most all if not all literary styles have been used in it's compilation which only adds to it's richness not detracts from it's authority.

Now when looking at precepts presented in the Bible, especially the ones given in the new testament asserted by the authors being instructed from the Holy Spirit, we can rest assure they are instructions directly from God for Christian living. What we as Christians living today need to discern is what precepts are inflexible, such as not murdering, as opposed to others that may be more cultural, like greeting one another with a holy kiss, or even the one you mentioned with women covering their heads. By gathering these less flexible precepts we can begin to construct a list as it were for application to say younger less mature Christians still heavy in their molting process of their worldly nature. This list does not judge by any means only it points out what God has stated authoritatively He disapproves of, like adultery, or stealing, and yes homosexuality. Now there have been many churches throughout the ages that have already generated these lists, pick a denomination and I am certain you can be obliged with a vast amount of information on the dos and donts of Christianity each one varying to their own degree of liberalism or legalism.

Now I say all this to speak to 1 Corinthians 5:4-5 passage. The Apostle Paul, called to be an Apostle to the Gentiles, was an instrument of divine use focused to establish numerous churches. Being he established them, coupled with the fact that Christianity was still in it's infancy, it was his responsibility to establish rules of engagement as it were against evil and sin. This passage from his epistle to the Corinthians correlates completely with the same teaching given in Matthew 18:15-17 by Jesus.

To speak now about judgement. We as Christians are not to say who is and who is not going to heaven or hell, we can only present what the Bible says in relation to such. We Christians are not to judge anyone outside the body of Christ, this is for God to do. We Christians do have the obligation to point out sin within the body of Christ, and at times we are to judge a course of action that hopefully leads that person in sin to repentance and future restoration.

In regard to the lost, we must in love show them they are in sin, just like everyone else who ever walked the planet except Jesus the Messiah. Faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of the Christ is the only solution to escape the wrath of a holy, righteous, and just God who is the ultimate Judge that everyone will face, saint and sinner alike. Without the righteousness imputed through faith in the Lamb, our deeds we think good attempting to stand on and present are nothing but menstrual rags before the awesome purity of goodness and love our Creator is. Acceptance into God's everlasting blessing is not something to be attained at the time of final judgement, but must be sought after now. In fact He is currently knocking on the door of relationship and fellowship, desiring to share Himself. All that must be done is the opening of a door being enveloped by the sweet rapturous Spirit of freedom that drives you to your knees in unrelenting thanksgiving, trusting Him for the release of that treacherous bondage of sin and death.

Pointing out sin in the life of one who sins is not judgement beloved, it is an integral part of the gospel, it leads to salvation and freedom from that sin.

 

[IHSscj]

I know because I understand what scripture is referring to. I know it was prophesied to be as the days of Sodom and Gomorrah when our Lord came, so I know that people will twist scripture to make homosexuality look like it's approved by God. So I know, whosoever has showed you what they have, and has said what they have to you are lying to you, plain and simple.

If you reason with the context of the scripture, you will see that it does not refer to FEM or anything else whatsoever. Things are spiritually discerned.

Any struggling homosexual who will accept that their sin is homosexuality, and accept that they want freedom from it, will get it. But that's when they accept it. If they refuse to accept it, they may end up dying in their sins.

It doesn't take an educated man, it doesn't take a theologian, it doesn't take a pastor, it doesn't take a preacher, nor a Jesuit, etc. to understand what scripture is saying. I understand, in these days men will most likely take scripture and twist it to suit their own needs. It's the time we live in. But last time I checked --- all it takes is a humble, willing spirit to learn what the Lord feels. I'm not going to sit down, and systematically twist scriptures, or have someone else systematically twist them to suit my own needs. When I learn what I have been doing was sin, I in fact must give it up --- no matter the struggle.

God made man, MAN, for a reason. If he wanted you to be a woman, He would have made you that way. If He wanted you to be someone who multiplied with the same sex, He would have made you that way. God did not make anyone gay, nor does He ever. He's not an idiot --- He knows what He is doing. If He wanted the man to be attracted to man --- He would have made them that way.

Again, if you have trouble understanding --- look at the context of what you are reading. It is not talking about FEM, as men have left the natural use of women --- Nature itself shows you men and women go together --- Therefore they have left such a natural use, and God has given them up to their vile affections since they did not like to retain God in their minds. Now here's the key, the people in turn left the natural use of the opposite sex, and burned in lust towards the same sex. This has nothing to do with the economy. This is how you know what God is talking about. The attention paid here, is to gender. The men left the natural use of woman, and burned in lust towards one another. Men then turned the gender which they left natural use of, towards the same gender. They then began to burn in lust towards those of their same gender. Why? Because they did not like to retain God in their minds. Some did not like to hear the Gospel, and some actually refuse to hear the truth towards homosexuality. This is a sexual tone --- why? Because scripture leads it to mean that. Not me, not the guy next door, not your best friend, and not your enemy. Scripture itself leads into that meaning, so that there can be no mistake. This is how I know --- I accept scripture for what it says, and not what I want it to say. Systematically changing every single word so it does not lead to homosexuality, will never change what this passage means. Scripture is plain on homosexuality. It is a sin. It of course, is more open, and more looked down upon than others. Sometimes things like pride, or arrogance, or hypocrisy are ignored, when God plainly and clearly hates those sins as well. Those are disgusting themselves. But that's not the point. The point is --- homosexuality is a sin. Those who do not wish it to be true will be left to receive the lies of Satan. Those who will learn the truth, will be open to it, and will hear it.

If anyone is a homosexual, they can check out some ex-gay testimonies. You can be free, just like everyone else who has an issue with sin. I struggle to, I call it a mind sin, but I guess it's a heart sin as well. Where I can and will instantly curse, or think a very evil thought in my heart. I hate it, with a passion. It's incredibly hard to control. But I'm still pushing. Sometimes I feel like giving up, but I won't. I don't know why it's so hard to control my own mind, I cannot even understand such a thing. But it's a struggle, nonetheless. No one said all this would immediately go away, and the struggle is sometimes longer and more horrid than you can imagine. There was never a promise that it would be easy. It's just promised that it will be worth it. Any homosexual --- There's a promise that you have help, and there's a promise that it will be worth it.

So I know, whosoever has showed you what they have, and has said what they have to you are lying to you, plain and simple.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Why are we focusing on human interactions, such one person telling another about scripture? Can you, or can you not, point to a scripture that says what you say you have found it to say? Have you done an analysis of the orginal Greek or Hebrew (as the case may be) texts?

If you reason with the context of the scripture, you will see that it does not refer to FEM or anything else whatsoever. ............
Again, if you have trouble understanding --- look at the context of what you are reading.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ "Context" suggests a very broad study. Can you give me any specific scripture references? Or, perhaps you know of a book that points out the context of which you speak.

Things are spiritually discerned.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Yes, but scripture has a physical, incarnate aspect. Scripture is the record, despite all the twists and turns the documents have been through to get to us today, in modern languages, of how people experienced physical manifestations of God's leading Hand. Perhaps you can tell me how you have discerned the meaning which you have found.

It doesn't take an educated man... to understand what scripture is saying.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ If it is so simple, can you point out where it says what you say it says, or how you found said meaning?

When I learn that what I have been doing was sin, I in fact must give it up --- no matter the struggle.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Agreed!

God made man, MAN, for a reason. If he wanted you to be a woman, He would have made you that way. If He wanted you to be someone who multiplied with the same sex, He would have made you that way. God did not make anyone gay, nor does He ever. He's not an idiot --- He knows what He is doing. If He wanted the man to be attracted to man --- He would have made them that way.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Where Does Scripture Say That? (WDSST?) Is procreation ("multiplication") important? Why? (Matthew 1: 18; Luke 1: 34- 35)

[M]en have left the natural use of women ...
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ How many ways are there to use a person (in this case, a woman)? And what makes the use of a person natural? In what sense is it natural? dictionary.com has five meanings for the word "natural." Which one of these was Paul conveying?

[T]he people in turn left the natural use of the opposite sex, and burned in lust towards the same sex.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ How do you know what natural use Paul was referring to? Does the original Greek text convey a reference to a sexual aspect of anything? The English translation seems to suggest a difference in gender. But there is more to gender difference than sexuality. In the agricultural economy of that time, gender difference also dictated cultural and social roles.

This has nothing to do with the economy.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ How Do You Know ? (HDYK?)

The attention paid here, is to gender.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ We could say that the attenton is to gender -- it certainly is mentioned often in this passage. But we could also say that the attention is paid to Sin. or to perversion. or to the extension of the depravity, since one thing caused another (vs. 19), which caused another (vs. 24), which caused another (vs. 26)...

Men then turned the gender which they left natural use of, towards the same gender.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Please clarify.

They then began to burn in lust towards those of their same gender.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ And what kind of lust was this? Does it specify?

Some did not like to hear the Gospel, and some actually refuse to hear the truth towards homosexuality.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ This seems confused -- are you speaking of the ancient polytheists whom Paul was specifically discussing? ("did not like") or someone in modern times? ("actually refuse")

This is a sexual tone ...
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ HDYK?

Scripture itself leads into that meaning ...
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ How are we to think of scripture, an inanimate phenomenon, doing anything? Surely it is a precious gift from God, but the One taking any action in connection with it (at least, the One that we can trust) is the Holy Spirit.

This is how I know --- I accept scripture for what it says, and not what I want it to say.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Great! Then you will be able to show me (and everyone else who reads this thread) how you have been able to derive these things you say from God's good gift of scripture.

It of course, is more open, and more looked down upon than others.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Please clarify.

Those who will learn the truth, will be open to it, and will hear it.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ This is certainly true, since it is a phrase that Jesus often used. (see, for example, Luke 8: 8, 14: 35)

If anyone is a homosexual, they can check out some ex-gay testimonies.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ All of this is in regard to concerns after I (if I ever) receive the "truth" you see yourself as offerring. Let's concentrate on the revelation of gayness being a sin, if the idea does indeed come from God Who loves us.

Sometimes I feel like giving up, but I won't. I don't know why it's so hard to control my own mind, I cannot even understand such a thing. But it's a struggle, nonetheless.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Agreed.

To know that you have to study the whole revelation of sexuality in scriptures. I have done this and the overall conclusion is that all sex outside the marriage of a man and a woman is sinful.

That covers, fornication, adultery, sodomy, paedophilia, sex with animals, rape, homosexuality or anything else you can think off that takes place outside the God approved male/female marriage.

God made it clear and Jesus backed him up. In Genesis 2:24, God said a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. No other configuration was considered for the simple reason God created man's psychological and emotional DNA to function effectively as a husband or a wife.

Jesus referred to his Father's plan in Matthew19:5 when He said, "For this reason a man shall leave father and mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh" repeating what God said in Genesis. 2:24.

Not joined to his boyfriend girlfriend, lover, sex provider etc. Someone one said that every time you have sex with someone who is not your wife/husband you give a bit of yourself away to your detriment.

That means any other configuration/action is NOT the will of God and when we ignore this fact, we are bit by bit destroying our emotional/psychological selves.

Quote: But I still need to know how you know that Homosexuality is sinful.

To know that you have to study the whole revelation of sexuality in scriptures.

_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Wow! That sounds like a big job. But if I "have to" go on from this point and make a decades-long study of the matter (I've spent 3 decades on it so far), I will seek Christ's direction in the matter. Or, perhaps you know of a book that would be helpful in the matter. As I like to say, "Whatever God wants is Good."

No other configuration was considered for the simple reason God created man's psychological and emotional DNA to function effectively as a husband or a wife.

_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ "No other configuration was considered..." by whom? by God? by the scriptural author? by ancient readers at some point in history? Is this limitation revealed somewhere in scripture?

Jesus referred to his Father's plan in Matthew 19:5 when He said ...

_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ And this divine plan -- was it universal? If so, where has God revealed such a universality?

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Our state's elected lawmakers will soon consider a bill called "The Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act." A more fraudulent title for this dangerous measure could not be imagined. The proposed law is, in truth, a grave assault upon both religious liberty and marriage. All people of goodwill, and especially Christ's faithful committed to my pastoral care in the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois, should resolutely oppose this bill and make their opinions known to their representatives.

The pending bill would, for the first time in our state's history, redefine marriage to legally recognize same-sex "marriages." But neither two men nor two women - nor, for that matter, three or more people - can possibly form a marriage. Our law would be lying if it said they could.

The basic structure of marriage as the exclusive and lasting relationship of a man and a woman, committed to a life which is fulfilled by having children, is given to us in human nature, and thus by nature's God. Notwithstanding the vanity of human wishes, every society in human history - including every society untouched by Jewish or Christian revelation - has managed to grasp this profound truth about human relationships and happiness: marriage is the union of man and woman.
The bill's sponsors maintain it would simply extend marriage to some people who have long been arbitrarily excluded from it. They are wrong. The pending bill would not expand the eligibility-roster for marriage. It would radically redefine what marriage is- for everybody.
It would enshrine in our law - and thus in public opinion and practice - three harmful ideas:

1. What essentially makes a marriage is romantic-emotional union.
2. Children don't need both a mother and father.
3. The main purpose of marriage is adult satisfactions.

These ideas would deepen the sexual revolution's harms on all society. After all, if marriage is an emotional union meant for adult satisfactions, why should it be sexually exclusive? Or limited to two? Or pledged to permanence? If children don't need both their mother and father, why should fathers stick around when romance fades? As marriage is redefined, it becomes harder for people to see the point of these profoundly important marital norms, to live by them, and to encourage others to do the same. The resulting instability hurts spouses, but also - and especially - children, who do best when reared by their committed mother and father.
Indeed, children's need - and right - to be reared by the mother and father whose union brought them into being explains why our law has recognized marriage as a conjugal partnership - the union of husband and wife - at all. Our lawmakers have understood that marriage is naturally oriented to procreation, to family. Of course, marriage also includes a committed, intimate relationship of a sort which some same-sex couples (or multiple lovers in groups of three or more) could imitate. But our law never recognized and supported marriage in order to regulate intimacy for its own sake. The reason marriage is recognized in civil law at all (as ordinary friendships, or other sacraments, are not) is specific to the committed, intimate relationships of people of opposite-sex couples: they are by nature oriented to having children. Their love-making acts are life-giving acts.

Same-sex relationships lack this unique predicate of state recognition and support. Even the most ideologically blinded legislator cannot change this natural fact: the sexual acts of a same-sex couple (regardless of how one views them morally) are simply not of the type that yield the gift of new life. So they cannot extend a union of hearts by a true bodily union. They cannot turn a friendship into the one-flesh union of marriage. They are not marital. This is not just a Christian idea, but one common to every major religious tradition and our civilization's great philosophical traditions, beginning with ancient Greece and Rome.

The pending bill is not only a dangerous social experiment about marriage. It is also a lethal attack upon religious liberty. This so-called "religious freedom" would not stop the state from obligating the Knights of Columbus to make their halls available for same-sex "weddings." It would not stop the state from requiring Catholic grade schools to hire teachers who are legally "married" to someone of the same sex. This bill would not protect Catholic hospitals, charities, or colleges, which exclude those so "married" from senior leadership positions. Nor would it protect me, the Bishop of Springfield, if I refused to employ someone in a same-sex "marriage" who applied to the Diocese for a position meant to serve my ministry as your bishop. This "religious freedom" law does nothing at all to protect the consciences of people in business, or who work for the government. We saw the harmful consequences of deceptive titles all too painfully last year when the so-called "Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act" forced Catholic Charities out of foster care and adoption services in Illinois.

These threats do not raise a question about drafting a better law, one with more extensive conscience protections. There is no possible way - none whatsoever- for those who believe that marriage is exclusively the union of husband and wife to avoid legal penalties and harsh discriminatory treatment if the bill becomes law. Why should we expect it be otherwise? After all, we would be people who, according to the thinking behind the bill, hold onto an "unfair" view of marriage. The state would have equated our view with bigotry - which it uses the law to marginalize in every way short of criminal punishment.

The only way to protect religious liberty, and to preserve marriage, is to defeat this perilous proposal. Please make sure our elected representatives understand that and know that they will be held to account.

Sincerely yours in Christ,
Most Reverend Thomas John Paprocki
Bishop of Springfield in Illinois

http://www.dio.org/blog/item/326.html


[N]either two men nor two women - nor, for that matter, three or more people - can possibly form a marriage.

_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ How Do You Know?

The basic structure of marriage ... is given to us in human nature, and thus by nature's God.

_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Is this a reflection of Thomism? Thomas Aquinas had some very interesting things to say, but do you truly believe that the approach that you describe can be supported in public, secular policy because God's plan is supposedly seen in nature?

Indeed, children's need - and right - to be reared by [their] mother and father ...

_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ You want to make heterosexual parentage a government-protected right? Isn't that's a bit off the deep end?

Of course, marriage also includes a committed, intimate relationship of a sort which some same-sex couples (or multiple lovers in groups of three or more) could imitate.

_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ "mitate?" This suggests an elevation of heterosexual parenting to a kind of Platonic-ideal throne. But how is this warranted? Let us bear in mind that the fundemental nature of marriage has undergone a big change in the past three or four centuries. Today, if a couple go to a pastor or counselor and say that they want to get married, the main issue that the respected figure will almost invariably bring up is, "Are you compatible?" But, as recently as the seventeenth century, the issue(s) to be discussed would have emphasized parental approval, social customs (e.g. the bridal price), and any cultural backgrounds which might be in conflict. Compatibility? The plan in those days was to produce cheap labor -- children, preferably sons -- to run the farm. That was the only compatibility that mattered then, or for millenia before that. So, how can we look upon marriage as an ancient (i.e. going back millenia) tradition to be kept?

So they cannot extend a union of hearts by a true bodily union.

_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ This assumes that procreation holds a special place in marital affairs. Yet, the Christmas story, cherished every December, would seem to suggest that procreation was the one thing that God set aside in order to bring the Sinless Messiah to us in the flesh. (Luke 1: 34- 35)

So they cannot extend a union of hearts by a true bodily union. They cannot turn a friendship into the one-flesh union of marriage. They are not marital.

_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ pronoun reference. "they" -- meaning couples? the sexual acts?

So they cannot extend a union of hearts by a true bodily union. They cannot turn a friendship into the one-flesh union of marriage. They are not marital.

_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Is belief in this limitation, whatever it is, derived from some quality that someone perceives to be inherent in procreation? Or was it because of the economic need, throughout history worldwide, to produce children as cheap (i.e. affordable) labor to man the farm and bolster the agricultural economies in a crucial way? If it was the latter, can we deny God's right to bless that use of procreation as a plebian form of blessing on the human race, in all its cultures in pre-industrial times?

If, in the industrialized west, procreation is now an economic burden rather than a support, can we deny God's right to move beyond the ancient use of procreation as economic engine, to bless the sharing of lives? of minds? of loves?

This "religious freedom" law does nothing at all to protect the consciences of people in business, or who work for the government.

_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Are these "consciences" truly, uniformly, shared across every pocket of modern society? Or are they more like a projection (in the freudian sense) of right-wing christian moralism on the political landscape?

 

[mjrhealth]

If all we have to present them with is the bible than we are missing the important ingredient, Jesus, it is Jesus who we are supposed to show them and the bible is not Jesus, If it is all you have than you have nothing to offer them and they have no reason to listen to us.

In all His Love

 

[justaname]

Yes but let us remember Jesus is the word of God, and the scriptures point to Him. By directing using the Bible we are pointing them to Jesus. Also we can give them love, which is how we give them Jesus.

Your point is well received, let us not miss it.

 

[mjrhealth]

and the scriptures point to Him.

And have you found Him yet or are you still following the street map. He isnt hiding away. You still dont get it, if you cant show them Jesus you have nothing to offer, reading teh bible is not showing them Jesus it is merely reading teh bible, Havnt you ever noticed how Jesus fed the people first than He spoke to them, go read what HE did follow His example.

In All His Love