www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Bush Wants Homosexuals Out of Marriage

AMDG
Lemko worte:
"As Andrew Sullivan (a practicing Catholic, by the way) has recently observed, the ultra-right-wing who are promoting the idea of a constitutional amendment intend to take this as far as it will go to deny as many rights as possible to homosexual persons."


Dear Lemko,
Please, let's have no more confusion about "homosexual persons." There is a very sharp distinction between those who experience homosexual drives but resist them through grace, and those who act upon their inclinations, or try to set up permanent "relationships" based upon "sexual" activity of this kind.
I don't know a lot about this proposed Amendment, but I do know this: to assert that the state ought grant legal recognition to unnatural practices is depart from right reason, and from the Apostolic Tradition as contained in Scripture and the writings of the orthodox Fathers & Doctors. God's word on this issue (as on all moral issues) has been infallibly guarded by Christ's Church.
There IS a great deal of confusion on this thread. I would like to (humbly) remind Krylos Leader that the state's interest is in the overall well-being of its citizens, which goes beyond their temporal well-being. The notion that the state has to be concerned about sanitation, but neutral with repect to GOOD & EVIL, is alien to the Christian Tradition of both East and West.
God Bless All.
Pisteu�n,
LatinTrad

Dear LatinTrad:

I'm not sure if you agree or disagree with what I've said.

However, to clarify (AGAIN!!!!! ). All I've said was that one cannot base public policy SOLELY on theological underpinnings.

There must be a legitimate state interest that our governments must put before the people. I never said that it HAS TO BE be measured in terms of money (the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities come to mind).

As for your arguments about absolutes of good and evil in the CHRISTIAN Tradition, I urge you to read the First Amendment to the Consitution of the United States of America.

Preach Christianity as much as you want. But keep it out of our goverment becasue some day someone might decide to use the Washington bully-pulpet to preach something un-Christian that YOU might NOT believe in.

Yours,

kl

P.S. If I haven't made it clear enough already, I have not argued in favor of the state recognizing homosexual unions.

I have merely taken issue with how the White House has presented the argument - both on a practical and on a legal/consitutional basis.

Ummmm... not if neither partner has the HIV virus already. But it sounds more evil and frightening the way you said it.

If the distinction between "homosexual person" and "gay" is that the former is celibate, chaste, and has homosexual "inclination" or "temptations" and the latter is one who engages regularly and with reckless abandon in "homosexual acts", what is someone who is mostly chaste but perhaps once in a while is not chaste, perhaps due to (let's put it in our Byzantine terminology for a moment) "missing the mark" ?

Is there only either-or here?

"homosexual person" (blessed with the gift of celibacy, a martyr for the Kingdom, etc.) = acceptable to God & the Church

vs.

"gay" (i.e., unrepentant homosexual, activist, shoving immorality in God's face, etc.) = to be called by faithful Christians out of their "lifestyle" and opposed by all legal means possible.

What would you call a "homosexual person" who tries to live chastely, believes in & loves God and accepts the Church's teaching, but is not blessed with the gift of celibacy? I guess he/she is just "gay" and is trying to destroy the Church and bring society down with it.

This is my last post on the subject.

Dear Johan,

On what statistical or numerical reports do you base your posting?

Here's why I am asking:

I've read reports that the greatest number of persons with aids world wide are not homosexual. It is predominately a disease of heterosexuals.

Women can and do get aids. Children are born with aids.

Aids is a horrible curse to humanity. It is an ailment.

I find it difficult to believe that God has a message in this sickness anymore than He had in the great influenza epidemic of the early last century or in the Black Death. People get sick.

Following that logic, it seems to me that it is completely legitimate for someone to say that God has a message in the horrible curse that is cancer.

Perhaps the message in all of this is that God is asking us to show our love for the least of His little ones. Based on some of the things that have been done to gays by our compatriots or, based on what I read here about what is proposed for them, I wonder if the demand is that we put our love very visibly where our mouthes are.

Perhaps we are charged to redouble our efforts as Christians to let gay people know that we as God's people love them. Surely we are in no danger of telling them too little what great sinners they are!

Perhaps just a little change in emphasis in our approach will lead these sinners to respond to the message that we offer. They should be able to contrast the way that we Christians approach them and treat them to what others are doing to them. At this point, I am not sure that there is a contrast that would be apparent.

By the way, someone told me that the group with the lowest incidence of aids are lesbians. If that's true, what is the message from God in that fact? I have not researched this. The same person said that the number of children with the disease is greater than the number of lesbians. Has anyone else heard this.

If true or not, I hope and pray never to hear again that HIV or Aids is God's judgement on homosexuals. What have little children done to gain God's judgement in such a horrible illness?

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

Excuse me for my intensity on this issue, but I believe that it is sinful to attribute such behavior to God.

Alas, this rebuttal sets up a strawman and does not address the main thrust of my argument. There is nothing intrinsically unsanitary in the activity described. In fact, since incineration is a standard practice for disposal of medical and toxic wastes, it is quite possible that this is a very sanitary activity.

But the core of the argument still remains untouched. The activity itself, not any ancillary hypotheticals attached to it, can not be proscribed by any compelling state interest apart from the collective sense of morality of its citizens.

-- Ed

Homosexual couples do not deserve the same rights as married couples. Rights cannot be awarded based upon a person�s free choice to engage in immoral behavior. Hospital visitation, property rights and etc. may already be arranged by appropriate assigning of the power of attorney. Healthcare is not a right in this country. Awarding healthcare based upon immoral lifestyle choices is wrong.

�

I would call such a person a sinner in need of the grace of Jesus Christ to help him or her win the struggle to remain chaste. Those who say it is impossible do not know the power of Jesus Christ in their life. Such Divine Assistance is available to those who seek it. The struggle is difficult but the reward is eternal life.

--

The Lord does not cause suffering but he uses the occasion of suffering to lead people to him. Many of our choices result in horrible suffering. Homosexual individuals need to be told that God loves them, that we love them and that we respect them. We can never approve of the choice to live a homosexual sexual lifestyle and must always condemn it. To condemn the lifestyle is not to condemn the homosexual person. As Christians we are obligated to minister to the needs of the sick and suffering no matter how they came out their situation. We are to minister totally and without question.

Apart from the words used, what is the difference between a "civil union" and a secular "marriage"? This is a serious question, not rhetorical. I hear politicians talking about how they would favor same-sex civil unions, but not same-sex marriages, and I really don't know how to parse what they are saying. Can someone enlighten me?

-- Ed

Dear Krylos Leader,

You posted:

"Preach Christianity as much as you want. But keep it out of our goverment becasue some day someone might decide to use the Washington bully-pulpet to preach something un-Christian that YOU might NOT believe in."

I agree with your position. If there is someone who thinks that that cannot happen, I'd invite them to go to the Coptic Church's web site and read about the change in the percentage of Christians in the population over the centuries of Islamic rule. Read about the taxes levied for the privelege of being Christian.

I'd invite such persons to learn about what happens to someone in an Islamic country such as Saudi Arabia who converts to Christianity.
Closer to home, look at the Nativist movement in the United States.

Religion is most important to me. I believe that through it God is leading us to build His kingdom. I am a Christian.

I've thought long and hard and, as I guess everyone knows by now, I think that there is a value in a secular state in that it is based on the necessity of good order and safety that as that is determined by the citizenry. I don't believe that any religion should be enshrined in the government or that law should become the enforcement of any one religion's moral teachings.

I believe that, as Christians, we have not only the right, but also the duty to preach what we believe. We have the duty to explain what the civil value of legislating this behavior and proscribing that behavior is. We know that what we believe is true. I believe that we can and must use appropriate research and study and presentation of fact and reason to reach those who do not accept that because of religious faith.

We cannot demand that such and such be legislated because we say that it arises from God's revelation to us in our tradition. It cannot be based on the teachings of any one religion.

The history of Europe is full of established churches and of persecution based on which teaching of revelation is that supported by the government.

But we cannot demand that others agree to do so for the reasons that President Bush said today, at least what I've read. For the president of the civil government to invoke the notion of sin or sinners when talking about citizens and their rights is truly frightening to me.

Am I missing something? Why don't others seem frightened by the taking up of the sacred by the state to support legislation?

Steve

Dear Administrator,

You posted:

"The Lord does not cause suffering but he uses the occasion of suffering to lead people to him. Many of our choices result in horrible suffering. Homosexual individuals need to be told that God loves them, that we love them and that we respect them. We can never approve of the choice to live a homosexual sexual lifestyle and must always condemn it. To condemn the lifestyle is not to condemn the homosexual person. As Christians we are obligated to minister to the needs of the sick and suffering no matter how they came out their situation. We are to minister totally and without question."

That is of course true.

But I appear to be missing something or I'm miscommunicating something poorly. As we know, that is quite possible. :rolleyes:

Let me share a couple of thoughts and questions that are tumbling through my mind.

God can and does use all kinds of things to reach us.

Hurricanes are not unknown where I live. As a hurricane approaches, I am told that visits to churches increase and people report praying more. I know that my prayer life goes into hyperdrive! Does that justify saying that God caused the hurricane for those reasons? Does the hurricane itself contain a message?

I don't believe that it does any more than I believe that aids does. Attributing such motivation to the Almighty seems to me to be greviously off the mark.

One can talk about illness as if it is a something If illness is a something it is created and must be created by God. Is illness truly evil?
Does God send it? God sends evil?

One can also talk about illness, a lack of good health or as others say an attempt by the body to balance what is out of balance, or something else, such as a failure of the body to be as it was meant to be. This changes the nature of illness. It is a lack.

Does God allow a lack to teach us something? Guess so. That's a far cry from asking what God's message is for us in aids as though He created it to teach us. As though He would mistreat his creatures to teach us. He doesn't need to do that.

We work long and hard to make sure that homosexuals know that we believe that they're sinners. That much is clear. As you point out there is the need for fraternal correction. I'm not sure that that was clearly what's being done in the Vatican's new project. It was misreported on the news here as the Vatican is campaigning against homosexuals.

I wonder why it is as not commonly known in that community that, as much as we have a difficulty with their sexual behavior, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches in general are protectors of them. To the Church's credit, as Alice noted, aids care is one thing that being done by the Church. It is sad that sometimes the Church has had to led kicking and screaming to do it as was the case with Mother Teresa and the Cardinal.

Why is it not commonly understood by homosexuals that the Catholic or Orthodox neighbor next door in particular LOVE them by the way that they treat them and talk to them and talk about them?
What can we do as Churches to help believers know that doing that is as much our Christian responsibility as is doing fraternal correction? Should we?


Where is the concerted effort to make a big story like this: Vatican rushes to assure homosexuals that it loves them? That'd be a headline grabber, I think.

We spend much time concentrating on the sin and making sure that everyone knows that it is sin. I wonder where the balance is.

I don't see that much time or effort being spent on reaching out to gay men and women and encouraging them to join the rest of us sinners as we work to eliminate all kinds of sin from our lives. Why hasn't "What are we doing to show love and include the homosexual and bring them among us" been been a topic for a thread?

If we really did that, that'd be clearly hating the sin but loving the sinner, no? I guess that I'm seeing lots of the first and not as much of the other in what I'm reading here. That's not surprising. It's the same most places.

So what's the contrast between how Christians treat the homosexual and how others treat them. I really think we should be able to point to it.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

I know I swore I wouldn't but....

So homosexuality = AIDS?

I wouldn't fault you for honestly saying "yes", if that is indeed what you believe. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial,sans-serif">Continuing to make assumptions--based on no factual statements whatsoever--about what I believe is proving to be as tedious as it is puerile. I have said no such thing about AIDS and homosexuality. Deal with what I say, not what you may wish me to say so that you have a convenient straw dog to tear down.

Why should anyone leave their religious faith at the door just because they serve in government? The current president uses religious references far less than most of the first 35 or 40 presidents. Our whole understanding of freedom is based upon the Founding Fathers Judeo-Christian understanding of freedom. There is nothing wrong with this. Are you just as frightened when you read some of George Washington�s speeches or those of other presidents? They constantly invoked such themes.

--

Can you further clarify what you mean? I thought I was clear in what I stated. I have not suggested that God causes suffering to get people into the Church. I have quite clearly stated the opposite � that God does not cause suffering or even the events that cause suffering. I have stated that when we do suffer, God uses the suffering we undergo to cleanse us and lead us to Him. This understanding has been known in the Church since apostolic times.

Does God cause illness? Not usually (but go read the Book of Job).

Is illness evil? No.

Does God allow a lack to teach us something? Not usually (but He can, see 2 Cor 12:8-10).

God will, however, use these experiences to teach us if we are willing to listen.

You wrote: We work long and hard to make sure that homosexuals know that we believe that they're sinners. That much is clear. As you point out there is the need for fraternal correction.

Do we really? I generally do not address the subject unless someone posts on this Forum challenging Church Teaching. Then I am obligated to address it and to make clear what we as Christians believe about homosexual activity. I think that the same thing is true in society. Very few people are interested in chasing after homosexuals living sinful lifestyles and condemning them for it. What sparks them to action is the demand by homosexuals for respect for a lifestyle which Christians know is wrong. What sparks them to action is the demand by homosexuals for rights that the society has traditionally granted to married couples (heterosexuals) because such things are good for the building up of a moral society. Assigning these rights to others is destructive to society.

I have not read the new Vatican document yet but I understand it is a call from the Church to Catholics (and especially Catholic politicians) to appeal to the natural law to oppose same sex common unions and marriages because they are such a threat to the natural order and to society itself. [BTW, did you read the documents I have linked yesterday and today? If you have not, please do!]

You wrote: Why is it not commonly understood by homosexuals that the Catholic or Orthodox neighbor next door in particular LOVE them by the way that they treat them and talk to them and talk about them?

Because many people are afraid of homosexuals. As Christians we cannot be on terms of intimate friendship with anyone who lives an immoral lifestyle but we must always be friendly, gently and helpful. Christ did not condemn but he always told people to go and sin no more.

You wrote: What can we do as Churches to help believers know that doing that is as much our Christian responsibility as is doing fraternal correction? Should we?

Get involved. Volunteer at an AIDS hospice. Join the Sisters of Calcutta in their ministry. True fraternal correction comes by witnessing the love of Jesus Christ to others, not by participation in forums such as this.

You wrote: Where is the concerted effort to make a big story like this: Vatican rushes to assure homosexuals that it loves them? That'd be a headline grabber, I think.

Unfortunately, the media would not be interested in such a story. You yourself pointed out that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches do an incredible amount of ministry to people who are sick, including those with HIV/AIDS. This is not news. The media is only going to report items that they can twist to make Christians look bad. I just glanced at the document released today by the Vatican. There were several references in the short document calling us to respect homosexuals. That was not reported in the media. Also not reported was the reason for the Church�s opposition to homosexual unions and marriages: preservation and promotion of the family.

You wrote: I don't see that much time or effort being spent on reaching out to gay men and women and encouraging them to join the rest of us sinners as we work to eliminate all kinds of sin from our lives. Why hasn't What are we doing to show love and include the homosexual and bring them among us been been a topic for a thread.

I doubt that most people who are actively reaching out in things they do everyday are going to trumpet their deeds on this Forum. I hope that for each of us Christianity is something we put into practice daily. I know some Forum participants who are actively involved in various ministries (nothing huge for most, just a few hours a week). I have several acquaintances and neighbors who are involved in homosexual relationships. The topic of homosexuality seldom comes up. They know my religious faith and what I believe. But they also know they can count on me when they are in need (although usually their need is defined as needing their car jump started on a cold morning or help repairing something at 11 PM on a Sunday night).

But the point you make is a fair one. I would extend it, though, to note that there are actually few discussions on providing ministry to anyone. And that is a failure and an embarrassment.

The major discussions on this Forum about homosexuality have all been complicated by those who are Christians yet seem to demand respect for the homosexual lifestyle. I don�t remember any of the participants who are the most vocal supporters of homosexual �rights� ever take the lead in organizing ministry to people who are sick and suffering. All they have done is to label people like me who strive to uphold and live Christian Teaching as bigots.

Admin

Adam, I quoted your own words! In response to your remark about Boswell dying of AIDS--a point that has no relevance to the disucssion--and my questioning of that relevance, you responded immediately If this is your justification for pointing out that he died of AIDS, then if you are not equating homosexuality with death from AIDS, then what is the connection?

And if there is no connection that you're making, what was the relevance of your remark, "Boswell (now dead of AIDS)" ??

Dear Administrator,

Evidently I've led you to believe that I was attacking the forum. They were not meant to be an attack. I do not see you as a bigot!

The posting was a kind of wondering aloud. Most of my comments were addressed more generally. I guess I was thinking aloud and shared that with you. Perhaps I ougth not to have.

I understood what you were saying about illness. My comments were still in reaction to another post and I was trying to figure out what would lead one to conclude that caused illness to say
something to us. Hence my thinking about illness.

I do fear the government using theology and theological concepts in building a case for law. I wonder which other presidents used the idea of sin and sinners to butress their position pro or con proposing a law? I don't know of any. If you or another poster can point me in the direction of such words, I'd appreciate it.

We've been round and round bout this issue. I have stated my conclusions. I respect your perspective; I simply don't agree with it for the reasons given.

I'm sorry that I led you to believe that I was criticizing the forum. This place is most special to me. I hope that that is clear.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

PS I am saddened by having to agree with your assertion that many people are afraid of homosexuals. The opposite is as true, my friends tell me. Perhaps intimate friendships while acknowledging the Christian position could help eliminate the fear on both sides?

Indeed. If we were serious about working to restore chastity and family values to our society we would be focussing on wide-spread, socially-accepted sinful heterosexual behavior. The restoration a society in which chaste behavior were again esteemed and actually "normal", would provide perhaps the most enormous help possible help to all of our brothers and sisters in their efforts to avoid sexual immorality. This, ISTM, is what we need to see clearly. Chastity, as Brother Maximos so eloquently argued, is a community affair. http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0212/opinion/davies.html