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

The discussion is turning towards what could be a profitable conversation about the whole Church-State relationship. As several people have pointed out, law is necessarily based on morals (it is IMMORAL to drive through a red light, because I might kill or injure somebody, which is itself immoral). However, since the "Enlightenment", we are faced with the myth of the neutral State, which nevertheless cannot avoid legislating on issues of serious moral import. To my (antedeluvian?) way of thinking, this creates a dilemma which can be fudged but cannot be resolved: on what moral basis is this "neutral State" to legislate? Is it, for example, proper for the State to forbid polygamy, despite the presence of Mormons, Muslims, and other religions who endorse polygamy? Is it proper for the State to provide funding for abortion, despite the presence of traditional Christians who regard abortion as the wanton murder of children? And on what basis does one decide such questions when the State claims not to endorse any particular world-view? I see no resolution to this problem except the recognition that the "neutral State" is, as I have termed it, a myth and even a deceit - and that would then throw us back to the question of just what world-view the State should be based on in a pluralist society. Again, I have no answer to this, but the question seems to underlie much of the current discussion. Incognitus

But it should be according to the Catholic bishops.


BTW, the ninnies in the Bush White House are scrambling after it was pointed out to them that we already do have a federal law defining marriage as between one man and one wife, signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

The deeply intellectual White House response to this fact: "Uhhhhh..."

Axios
Contraceptivist

Dear Steve:

I, for one, appreciate your posts. Nice to have someone that understands what I am saying.


Dear Justin:

Fine, let me take your hypothetical and assume that it is somehow possible to have "immoral" behavior that doesn't hurt another human being in any possible way, shape or form. (Even in your example, taking the sanitation out of it, someone could make an argument that Mr. Burner is upsetting some sort of ecological balance that hurts all of us).

Still, if such an activity exists (and I would love to hear one) then I think the greater sin would be to waste our tax dollars fighting it.

You're probably setting me up, but there it is.


Dear Incognitus:

Bravo! Absolutely correct. There is no right or wrong answer to the concept of a "neutral state." Certainly this discussion proves that our political theory is still developing on this issue.

The best one can hope for is for the neutral State to draw from as many sources as it can - whether they be based in theology or not - to achieve a sound public and social policy. However, the public andsocial policy aspect must be there.

Yours,

kl

Steve, I was not referring to you. I was referring to those people who have actively demanded rights for homosexual activity. I�m sorry I was not clearer in my statement. Your participation in this thread has been very balanced and you have raised a number of good points.

Regarding illness, I think it is appropriate to reaffirm that God does not use illness as a punishment for sinful behavior. HIV/AIDS is not a punishment for sinful behavior. Choices do have consequences, however, and those who choose to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage (heterosexual, monogamous, stable marriage) risk contracting this dreaded disease.

With all due respect (I hate to ask this), have you studied the basics of American history? While all the new history books are cleansing our past of all religious references libraries are still crammed with texts documenting the religious foundations of our society and our government. The concept of sin and references to sin are quite easy to find for anyone doing casual reading. Are you really unaware of the religious influence upon our legal system? If you are, get thee to a library and start reading!

It all depends on the individual. One can be friendly and help neighbors who happen to be living a sinful lifestyle. There are limits, however, when some of them are adamant about demanding that we respect and acknowledge their behavior as acceptable. Intimate friendship would be taking it too far as it would violate the Scriptural command not to have such relationships with people who have rejected God�s Teaching. As in everything else, it is a balance.

BTW, have you read the documents I have linked earlier (the one to the Vatican document on the care of homosexual persons and the secular one on marriage)? I think that they can provide a very good perspective and provide much for consideration.

Admin

Exactly! I think the issue here is that those engaging in sinful heterosexual behavior are not demanding special protection for it.

Uhhhhh� no. The White House has been rather clear in its worries that the Supreme Court may re-define marriage as merely a contractual relationship between any two or more people, regardless of chosen sexual preference. If / when this happens, the federal law defining marriage as between one man and one woman would be gutted. That is why some members of Congress (and several in the White House) are discussing a Constitutional Amendment. I think it is appropriate to point out that the media is very selective in what it chooses to report and how it chooses to support. From the media�s perspective, all Christians who actually follow God�s laws and teach them to others are evil, mean-spirited and homophobic bigots.

No, Administrator, you are factually wrong. Bush clearly refused to come out for a constituional amendment against same sex marriage, despite pressure from the right wing to do so. That leaves his ill defined action as something statutory or less. And the White House has stumbled on the question of how this would be different than the Clinton legislation.

If the media portrays people like you rself who would like to see physical actions taken against gay people for sexual activity as mean spirited, I suggest you get a better press officer.

Axios

Dear Administrator:
I don't quite see the connection between what I wrote and what you wrote. Perhaps you can elaborate. What is "special" about some protections versus others?

No, Axios, you are factually wrong. I did not address at all the issue of whether President Bush has spoken publicly about supporting a constitutional amendment. You are quite wrong when you suggest that I have stated that Bush has given public support for a constitutional amendment. Bush has spoken only to the need to do something and that he hopeful that there was some other means of accomplishing a legal definition of traditional marriage without the need for a constitutional amendment. I assumed, correctly or incorrectly, that he was referring the possibility of putting some new justices on the Supreme Court who respected the Constitution and did not legislate from the bench. I stated that some members of Congress (and several in the White House) are discussing a constitutional amendment. This is quite accurate and no secret. Bush is a very organized person. He generally does not speculate about his intentions but only announces them when he is ready to act.

Again you are wrong. I have never suggested that I would like to see physical actions taken against homosexual individuals involved in deviant sexual activity. I have only spoken that it is morally wrong to create special rights for people who engage in deviant behavior and that the society has the right to enact specific sanctions against people who engage in such deviant behavior.

Axios, your spin of the truth to support your unOrthodox positions just doesn�t work.

djs,

Thank you for your post � I should have provided a more complete explanation. I was still thinking of some of the points that Steve made and your post made a good additional point. My point was that most heterosexuals who are living sinful are not active about demanding special rights for their behavior. Because of this they are not placing themselves in the public spotlight and most Christians do not feel an urgent obligation to address the issue (even though they should). Homosexual activists, however, have been very demanding of special legal protection for their behavior (and they have succeeded in their quest). Their activism has placed them in the spotlight and thus their detrimental effect upon society is discussed more often, making it more urgent for Christians to respond. I probably should have included my own Scriptural reference, which was in your response to my post to place it in perspective. If we use the example of this Forum we have some of our participants demanding respect and legal protection for homosexuals involved in deviant sexual activity but we have not had any participants post demands for special protections for heterosexuals involved in deviant sexual activity. Hence, the discussions focus more on one topic than on the other. Yes, it was not an exact response to your point but rather a development of it and I should have clearer.

I do agree with the larger point you have made. As Christians we should be working to restore chastity and family values to our society and focusing changing societal acceptance for all sexual activity outside of marriage. Yes, we must oppose the societal erosion of respect for marriage by both heterosexuals and homosexuals (especially those seeking rights for deviant behavior) but our main focus should be among the people within our own Churches. It is sometimes difficult to keep this focus when some Christian brothers and sisters reject Christian teaching on these issues.

Two other issues:

1. The new Vatican document is: �Considerations regarding proposa...to unions between homosexual persons�. [zenit.org]

2. Thank you to everyone who has send me e-mails and private messages of support in these discussions. My private message box keeps filling up. If it is full when you wish to send a message please send an e-mail to forum@www.byzcath.org. I would like to invite the people who have send me e-mail but who do not participate in the Forum to register and join the discussions.

Admin

I disagree. "Domestic partnership" has found its way onto insurance forms, sitcoms, classes on marriage and family, etc. Marriage will also conflict with the stipulations of social welfare programs. My unmarried cousin is going on her tenth child thanks to the U.S. government and U.S. taxpayers. There is no reason to get in the spotlight for such institutionalized heterosexual domestic arrangements, for it will only draw attention to them and people may begin to question their existence.

Such arrangements used to go by the name of "shacking up." But that isn't PC.

Joe

Kind of ironic, isn't it? Gay people, who shouldn't, want to get married, while straight people, who should, don't!

Sin never makes sense, but financial sponsorship does. Follow the money.

Dear Joe and Theist Gal:

Follow the money indeed. Anyone ever heard of the "marriage penality." Not exactly promoting the institution, are we?

Yours,

kl