The Religious Liberty to Support Same Sex Marriage...

[gurneyhalleck1]

The sentiment and love is healthy, but the belief that God creates a person by NATURE as homosexual is patently false. We know this because of the Fall and what we see prior to it and what the Bible and Fathers tell us. Adam and Eve were made to love God completely and their biology and creation was by default perfect. They were not of a same-sex attraction. The Fall was profound. The Orthodox Church does not believe it was as radical and all-encompassing with regard to the extent and especially original guilt as Catholics believe, but essentially both believe in a real serious Fall from Grace. It blurred our vision. The actual nature of man is holy and Godly, but because of the tendency toward sin and comforting the ego and selfish pursuits as well as an overall deviation from nature, it's impossible to say that homosexuality is NATURAL. If anything, it's the antithesis of the Garden. Paul tells us that God handed over the people in the days of the flood to a "reprobate mind." Reprobate means depraved, wicked, evil. So we can see that if people lose the path of God, or for a vast array of reasons, people become UN-natural.

I always hear people use the same logic with heterosexual sex. "Hey man, I looked at pornography ok? Big deal. We're all animals, man, just of a higher evolved level. Animals need sex and have urges. So do I. It's human nature to want sex! I'm not proud of it, but it's just human nature acting up! I gotta be me!"

Problem: being sex-crazed is NOT human nature! It's FALLEN nature! And seeing the human as a higher-evolved animal is the problem. Read Chesterton's "Everlasting Man." I think a lot of the problem is how we see mankind and the Fall and evolution and rationalize things from our surroundings. If it's any comfort, same-sex attraction, though disordered and sinful, is not necessarily better or worse than heterosexual adultery, which is also disordered, or pornography addiction, which is also disordered.

In the end, it's about the Fall. We can't trust the definitions American psychiatric communities give us, as they have a wholly different view of the human person that we have as Christians. And most people with same-sex attraction are buying into the "I'm GAY by default, can't help it, man!" stuff the psychiatric community is selling them. The head-shrinker community has some good motivations mixed with diabolical ones.

Folks suffering from SSA get bullied. We don't want that. Some SSA's commit suicide from the guilt. We don't want that! Some live a life of self-loathing. We don't want that! So, the psychs tell them it's natural, healthy, ok.

I can't stress the importance of focusing on the Fall enough and eradicating the "nature" argument. If we go down that path, we enter into other "natural" arguments like:

"I have had urges to have sex with children since I was 20! I am a pedophile. It's who I am, born this way by God. Why deny myself?"

or

"I just CANNOT limit myself to being married to just one woman! I've tried and tried and tried! I lust after other women with different bodies and builds. Man, it's just who I am! So, since God made me this way, my wife and I swing with other women and I let her go with other guys."

There's really no end to it. I wouldn't make it experiential, but stick to the Fathers and Bible and Church precedence. The Fall affects us and we as mere Christian laymen are so easily swayed by individual experience and our heart strings. That's why God placed bishops, patriarchs, and the Fathers above us to enlighten and guide, to discern truth amidst a real blurring of our lenses--the Fall.

A lot of good, well thought out analysis here. Of course, I still haven't closed the book on the debate of whether some people are born gay by nature. I have gay friends who are as repulsed by the idea of heterosexual behavior as I am by homosexual behavior. I don't allow scripture to contradict scripture. Rather, scripture must qualify scripture. Most scriptural references to homosexual behavior is not attributed to n inherantly homosexual person, but rather to straight people engaging in homosexual behavior, as well as other more bizzar craziness.

I must always consider three things when taking a position. 1) scripture. 2) personal experience and knowledge. 3) my knowledge of god and how it weighs agaist its absolute center, of a love so strong that christ died for us while we were yet in sin. I can't put those three things together and find condemnation for somebody based on their attractions or even their tresspasses, because salvation is based around love and sacrifice, for those who are not acting in a way that would warrant love or sacrifice.

I like the mercy approach. I'm a guy who needs a lot of mercy, so I try to give mercy whenever I am in a position to. For my gay friends, I feel sorry for them that they live a life of persecution, being treated as faulty and second class. They are atonomous minded people, not people who would choose a hard path, people who truly have suffered for things they have no control over.

Until I believe differently, I say to the homosexual, god loves you, god created you, if that's how he created you, then that's how he loves you. If you're lying about having been born that way, and it really was a personal choice of perversion, may god have mercy on your soul, you sick sick puppy.

 

[sean michael]

The sentiment and love is healthy, but the belief that God creates a person by NATURE as homosexual is patently false. We know this because of the Fall and what we see prior to it and what the Bible and Fathers tell us. Adam and Eve were made to love God completely and their biology and creation was by default perfect. They were not of a same-sex attraction. The Fall was profound. The Orthodox Church does not believe it was as radical and all-encompassing with regard to the extent and especially original guilt as Catholics believe, but essentially both believe in a real serious Fall from Grace. It blurred our vision. The actual nature of man is holy and Godly, but because of the tendency toward sin and comforting the ego and selfish pursuits as well as an overall deviation from nature, it's impossible to say that homosexuality is NATURAL. If anything, it's the antithesis of the Garden. Paul tells us that God handed over the people in the days of the flood to a "reprobate mind." Reprobate means depraved, wicked, evil. So we can see that if people lose the path of God, or for a vast array of reasons, people become UN-natural.

I always hear people use the same logic with heterosexual sex. "Hey man, I looked at pornography ok? Big deal. We're all animals, man, just of a higher evolved level. Animals need sex and have urges. So do I. It's human nature to want sex! I'm not proud of it, but it's just human nature acting up! I gotta be me!"

Problem: being sex-crazed is NOT human nature! It's FALLEN nature! And seeing the human as a higher-evolved animal is the problem. Read Chesterton's "Everlasting Man." I think a lot of the problem is how we see mankind and the Fall and evolution and rationalize things from our surroundings. If it's any comfort, same-sex attraction, though disordered and sinful, is not necessarily better or worse than heterosexual adultery, which is also disordered, or pornography addiction, which is also disordered.

In the end, it's about the Fall. We can't trust the definitions American psychiatric communities give us, as they have a wholly different view of the human person that we have as Christians. And most people with same-sex attraction are buying into the "I'm GAY by default, can't help it, man!" stuff the psychiatric community is selling them. The head-shrinker community has some good motivations mixed with diabolical ones.

Folks suffering from SSA get bullied. We don't want that. Some SSA's commit suicide from the guilt. We don't want that! Some live a life of self-loathing. We don't want that! So, the psychs tell them it's natural, healthy, ok.

I can't stress the importance of focusing on the Fall enough and eradicating the "nature" argument. If we go down that path, we enter into other "natural" arguments like:

"I have had urges to have sex with children since I was 20! I am a pedophile. It's who I am, born this way by God. Why deny myself?"

or

"I just CANNOT limit myself to being married to just one woman! I've tried and tried and tried! I lust after other women with different bodies and builds. Man, it's just who I am! So, since God made me this way, my wife and I swing with other women and I let her go with other guys."

There's really no end to it. I wouldn't make it experiential, but stick to the Fathers and Bible and Church precedence. The Fall affects us and we as mere Christian laymen are so easily swayed by individual experience and our heart strings. That's why God placed bishops, patriarchs, and the Fathers above us to enlighten and guide, to discern truth amidst a real blurring of our lenses--the Fall.

Love your passion, your reasoning, and your thinking. Its hard to disagree. What you say spells out perfectly in writing. In reality, I face a real issue that can not be written away. I agree the popular psyche industry is a mill of fools and I wouldn't even accuse them of having good intentions. Religion, however, is also a very strong bias, giving people a bent to prove something a particular way by religeous reasoning and sometimes with complete disregard for reality.

The word reprobate actually means counterfeit. It does not mean evil. It means its an imposter. In Romans 1:28 paul says those who desired not to retain their knowledge of god were handed over to a reprobate mind. The sin is not sex, its going against the knowledge of god.

We agree gods perfect creation is man and woman, and the fall changed the game to catastrophic degree.

This is what I have:
A) a dear friend (several actually) whom I've known for years, people I know are hard working, well meaning, not in any way rebellious or contentious, who swear to me this is how they are, how they've always been.

B) people I have never met, telling me they are liars and sinners living in rebellion and repressive developmental disorder. All of these people, incidentally, happen to be the same religion, and with no experience with the subject, are somehow experts.

That's a rock and a hard place for a guy like me looking objectively for the truth. Personal experience matters to me. If it didn't, I would be a fool. To say itndoesnt matter, and the clergy will back that up, makes the clercy complicit in hiding reality when it doesn't fit into their description of right and wrong.

God bless the clergy, I could never fill those shoes. Thank god I am just a man allowed to be merciful and wrong.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The word reprobate in Scripture is adokimos in Greek, meaning technically "rejected after testing, unapproved, rejected on account of its own worthlessness."

Well, religion must have a bias because it is a search for truth with a Capital T. Christ Himself is all Truth and for the Orthodox or Catholic Christian, the Church is the Body of Christ with perfect teachings through the charism of the Holy Spirit given to the patriarchs, bishops, and holy Fathers and Sacred Tradition. I can't see where the Church would "disregard reality."

I think the problem you have is a dichotomy you're putting out there for yourself: on one hand religious zealots with their own crazy view of reality from their theology brain trusts, and on the other hand "experts." That's my problem right there---the EXPERTS. Ask yourself why, say, in 1958 the psychiatric community declared beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality was a real disorder....then in 2013 they've altered that opinion saying it's healthy, innate, solid as a rock, good stuff. What changed? How did the person with same-sex attraction change from 1958 to 2013? The SSA guy in 1958 had the same penchant for certain homoerotic activities that the guy in 2013 has? They like the same things, find the same attractions, live in the same country, same stimuli, no control group changes or test changes? How did it go from disordered to a good thing? It's not an observable phenomenon like DNA. In the 1920's scientists could hear of DNA and laugh, are you kidding? but with technologies and scientific analysis and measurable tests and concrete proof, we see DNA is legit. But homosexuality isn't an observably changed phenomenon?

What I'm saying is that you're saying religious folks have an agenda, neglecting to realize the "experts" do as well.

I think where you're wrong is that you think people opposed to "gay marriage" somehow see people with SSA as somehow less than human---scum, garbage, and since they're disordered, they're freaks. Not at all. In fact, as I said, the stats say that 50% of the men in the pews of EVERY church denomination view porn on a REGULAR basis. That IS INDEED a disorder. There are lots of disorders. Alcoholism, rampant lust, adultery, porn addiction, deceit, we could go on and on! Disorder is common. Why? THE FALL.

So, it's not that you have a good, wonderful, caring friend with SSA and a group of online wingnuts like myself saying, "torch the gay guy! string him up! He's disordered!"

Far from it. But I just say that we cannot legitimize his "matrimony" with another man. End of story. The man with SSA might have less disorder than some heteros who refuse to forgive, live as pharisees, or loath their neighbor! The SSA person might struggle with his disorder, but does that mean other Christians don't have a disorder of their own?

I'm not in favor of rounding up the gay community and shooting them into outer space, but rather just not legitimizing their matrimony. Matrimony is outside of their secularized, odd definition. That's all.

I have known folks with SSA myself. i worked with one about ten years ago and watched this married man struggle with the disorder constantly and go through agony. It consumed him and it was ugly to watch. I genuinely pitied his struggle. And I don't consider them sub-human by a longshot. Neither Orthodoxy nor Catholicism allows such dehumanization.

Love your passion, your reasoning, and your thinking. Its hard to disagree. What you say spells out perfectly in writing. In reality, I face a real issue that can not be written away. I agree the popular psyche industry is a mill of fools and I wouldn't even accuse them of having good intentions. Religion, however, is also a very strong bias, giving people a bent to prove something a particular way by religeous reasoning and sometimes with complete disregard for reality.

The word reprobate actually means counterfeit. It does not mean evil. It means its an imposter. In Romans 1:28 paul says those who desired not to retain their knowledge of god were handed over to a reprobate mind. The sin is not sex, its going against the knowledge of god.

We agree gods perfect creation is man and woman, and the fall changed the game to catastrophic degree.

This is what I have:
A) a dear friend (several actually) whom I've known for years, people I know are hard working, well meaning, not in any way rebellious or contentious, who swear to me this is how they are, how they've always been.

B) people I have never met, telling me they are liars and sinners living in rebellion and repressive developmental disorder. All of these people, incidentally, happen to be the same religion, and with no experience with the subject, are somehow experts.

That's a rock and a hard place for a guy like me looking objectively for the truth. Personal experience matters to me. If it didn't, I would be a fool. To say itndoesnt matter, and the clergy will back that up, makes the clercy complicit in hiding reality when it doesn't fit into their description of right and wrong.

God bless the clergy, I could never fill those shoes. Thank god I am just a man allowed to be merciful and wrong.

 

[Needing_Grace]

Oh, and I'm not called to chastity. The bible instructs not to withhold sex from the spouse except for ritual cleansing. I'm not sure where you found Christianity to be called to chastity, have you read Paul's take on that?

You're confusing chastity with celibacy. If you're faithful to your wife and your acts of mutual love are open to new life, you're doing it chastely.

Sent from my iPhone using CF

 

[Needing_Grace]

If by catholic, you mean universal, I would agree. If, by catholic, you mean the religion that was hijacked by Rome in 313 a.d., I would have to laugh and assume you very presumptious

Naughty naughty teaching against Catholicism in the Catholic Forum.

Sent from my iPhone using CF

 

[Nietzscheiswrong]

So you support using offensive slurs to prove your point?

I'll redress.

What's the threat of ppl with SSA getting married in civil marriages?

I don't get it.

MArriage is a human construct anyway. It existed before christianity and exists for people who aren't christian and don't see it as a "covenant" between God and the man + woman. Is only christian marriage a marriage? Nope.

 

[sean michael]

Naughty naughty teaching against Catholicism in the Catholic Forum.

Sent from my iPhone using CF

I don't preach against anything aside from anybody claiming a monopoly on god. The veil was torn my dear, I can stand directly before him without a priest entering in for me. Catholicism may be the only hope left that the church can survive.

 

[sean michael]

For the record, I've never suggested the church should marry gay couples, only that the federal and state governments can not continue to ban it because it is blatant discrimination. The church can and should be discriminate, the government should not.

 

[Needing_Grace]

I don't preach against anything aside from anybody claiming a monopoly on god. The veil was torn my dear, I can stand directly before him without a priest entering in for me.

You still go through Jesus, our Great High Priest.

The Catholic Priest is there to act in Jesus' stead for us relative to the Sacraments. He, acting on Jesus' behalf, forgives our sins (John 20:22-23) and makes Christ truly present for us to eat and drink for the strengthening of our souls and the forgiveness of our venial sins. The Priest speaks Christ's words to us.

Catholicism may be the only hope left that the church can survive.

You can count on it. Jesus said so.

BTW, ya might want to reconsider calling another dude "my dear." Just sayin'.

 

[sean michael]

You still go through Jesus, our Great High Priest.

The Catholic Priest is there to act in Jesus' stead for us relative to the Sacraments. He, acting on Jesus' behalf, forgives our sins (John 20:22-23) and makes Christ truly present for us to eat and drink for the strengthening of our souls and the forgiveness of our venial sins. The Priest speaks Christ's words to us.



You can count on it. Jesus said so.

That's where it gets sketchy for me. I hope to understand this one day. You see, the old covenant was the covenant of the law, as administered by the levitical priesthood. Jesus blood was the seal of the new testament, christ being the testator, and ushered in an end to a vast empire of a priesthood, as Jesus became high tpriest "forever after the order of melchisedek", who gave ministry to god before there existed a Jew. Under the new covenant, "there is now no mediator between man and god except Jesus christ", and the tearing of the veil was specifically to announce this new covenant of faith, where no longer would man need a priest to represent him to god, he could stand directly before god now. No mention about the empire of 841,000 catholic priests can be found in the bible. Can you believe an honest man who wants to do what's right, could have a legitimate need for answers that are more significant than a vere about building a church on a rock (peter) before he takes his life out of gods hands and places it in mans? If not, I'll go play somewhere else and have Java

 

[Nietzscheiswrong]

From what I understand by the posts made here the reason is:

- They can't marry because God says so (which is acting like a tv evangelist) and proved in Sodoma and Gomorra (which is folklore btw)

- They will subvert the meaning of marriage as a sacrament (already done the wrench was tossed when civil marriages were instituted plus the right to divorce)

- More ppl who deny their SSA will become active in it and not live miserable lives of self denial. - Chastity, humility, obedience, self denial, depression, (psycotherapy,) life of despair, suicide. That's the progression.

Most ppl stop the cycle at self denial and suit up an alternative way of seeing reality by not seeing it properly and clinching to religious ideology which fosters chastity, humility, obedience and self denial as virtues when they are mostly the cause of mental disorders. The problem is modern society thanks to the neurosciences already tore apart the religious convictions of medieval misconceptions of the human body and mind.

There will be gay marriage someday. Just like divorce. The church will have to decide either accept scientific discoveries and embrace them totally with no exceptions or continue being obscurantistic in nature with less and less ppl adhering to its moral norms.

 

[sean michael]

From what I understand by the posts made here the reason is:

- They can't marry because God says so (which is acting like a tv evangelist) and proved in Sodoma and Gomorra (which is folklore btw)

- They will subvert the meaning of marriage as a sacrament (already done the wrench was tossed when civil marriages were instituted plus the right to divorce)

- More ppl who deny their SSA will become active in it and not live miserable lives of self denial. - Chastity, humility, obedience, self denial, depression, (psycotherapy,) life of despair, suicide. That's the progression.

Most ppl stop the cycle at self denial and suit up an alternative way of seeing reality by not seeing it properly and clinching to religious ideology which fosters chastity, humility, obedience and self denial as virtues when they are mostly the cause of mental disorders. The problem is modern society thanks to the neurosciences already tore apart the religious convictions of medieval misconceptions of the human body and mind.

There will be gay marriage someday. Just like divorce. The church will have to decide either accept scientific discoveries and embrace them totally with no exceptions or continue being obscurantistic in nature with less and less ppl adhering to its moral norms.

I agree that the state has no business enforcing religious doctrine. As far as science, the church is beyond the leading edge of science. In fact, science has had to dumb itself down because god shows up all over science and the universities have to regularly fire scientists for discovering this, especially when they try to publish it. Try watching "expelled" by Ben stien. There is a large group of well funded academics whom admittedly exist for the purpose of keeping any evidence of god or intelligent design from receiving any credibility in acedamia. In the real world, science is the scared fool covering its eyes from its own discoveries because of its religion

 

[sean michael]

Do a study on the cell sometime. All modern cellular research has begun noticing something very troubling that exists in every single living cell; Intelligent Information. Each cell contains information telling it how to function, how to interact, even how to be a cell. Acedemia will not pursue studies of this information, because they know it means the cell was intelligently designed. How do you evolve intelligent information into a cell? Science is running scared, the church is presently winning the science game. Laughing at the church in the name of science makes one look, perhaps, uninformed?

 

[Nietzscheiswrong]

Science can't disprove God. Infact science one day will if anything prove His existence.

The fact of the matter is does someone have to clinch to moral norms instituted arbitrarily more than 3000 yrs ago when schytzophrenics, epileptics etc were considered to be possessed by the devil? With adulterers being stoned etc etc?

What science does - medicine - is to put an end to superstition like weeping statues and increases the comprehension of the human body. The perfect machine. (Descartes).

There's a bridge between religious morality and the understanding of the human body and mind we now have. One of the two will have to give up eventually. Its going to take centuries like the acceptance of heliocentrism but in the end science because it is empirical will eventually prevail fisiologically.

The real challenge that the church faces isn't gay marriage but the spread of scientific discoveries about how the body and mind function which undermine the church's moral teachings on the body and mind made by the fathers of the church in the middle ages.

Since truth can't go against truth the church will have to budge or prepare to face its downfall in the west. That's the real problem.

 

[sean michael]

Science can't disprove God. Infact science one day will if anything prove His existence.

The fact of the matter is does someone have to clinch to moral norms instituted arbitrarily more than 3000 yrs ago when schytzophrenics, epileptics etc were considered to be possessed by the devil?

What science does - medicine - is to put an end to superstition like weeping statues and increases the comprehension of the human body. The perfect machine. (Descartes).

There's a bridge between religious morality and the understanding of the human body and mind we now have. One of the two will have to give up eventually. Its going to take centuries like the acceptance of heliocentrism but in the end science because it is empirical will eventually prevail fisiologically.

The real challenge that the church faces isn't gay marriage but the spread of scientific discoveries about how the body and mind function which undermine the church's moral teachings on the body and mind made by the fathers of the church in the middle ages.

Since truth can't go against truth the church will have to budge or prepare to face its downfall in the west. That's the real problem.

that's funny, that's what the scribes and chief priests said 2,000 years ago. Before there was a west. Don't worry, they said, if this isn't real, it will fall apart now that Jesus is dead, just like every following of every so called prophet before him. Not only did it not fall apart, it grew like wildfire and actually created the west where you think it will fall. Since we only have the here and now, and were not prophets, lets contain our sourcing to the real world. The church should never violate itself in the same of science. The state should never discriminate in the name of religion. Why isn't that simple? I dont get it

 

[sean michael]

Why would the church acknowledge a scientific community that openly and blatantly bends its research and shapes its discoveries in a way that would disprove god? That would be like ordering fresh cianide to heal your sick brother.

 

[sean michael]

Academia has badly and possibly irrevocably discredited its offspring

 

[sean michael]

Chop chop people I'm going to work for a couple days, I won't be able to sit here and irritate you all day tomorrow, geddit while its hot

 

[sean michael]

The church has constitutional protection against violating itself. The only way gay marriage happens at church is if the church decides to marry gays. In this light I would say the church fears itself, if not for the jomama administration happily walking on the constitution at every opportunity

 

[Nietzscheiswrong]

that's funny, that's what the scribes and chief priests said 2,000 years ago. Before there was a west. Don't worry, they said, if this isn't real, it will fall apart now that Jesus is dead, just like every following of every so called prophet before him. Not only did it not fall apart, it grew like wildfire and actually created the west where you think it will fall. Since we only have the here and now, and were not prophets, lets contain our sourcing to the real world. The church should never violate itself in the same of science. The state should never discriminate in the name of religion. Why isn't that simple? I dont get it

The church shouldn't violate itself in the name of science but embrace science even though its a gut punch to it. For example evolution. Which it has finally.

It finally also is opening itself up to psychology and the neurosciences. When the CCC speaks of the requirements for mortal sin to be mortal it has opened itself to pathological disorders i.e. mental disorders which make a mortal sin a venial sin instead.

Its opening up but since those "in charge" are 70+ it always takes a while longer.

I'm not talking about dogmas but about the functioning of the body in a nutshell medicine. Most moral teachings concern the functioning of the body.

I hope I'm being understood.

As a footnote all I hear from priests is how the west is living a post-christian era and other geremiads.

During the reunification of Italy the Pope excommunicated everyone who dared vaccinate themselves (google it, research it etc). Blood transfusions and organ transplants were a big question back in the days when they were first available.

Now there's bioethics which impedes embryonic stem cell research for example (that's what you touched on in your previous post on cells).