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

Dear Admin:

We must indeed be misunderstanding each other. My point is very limited.

I want the White House to back up its anti-gay marriage stance with reasoning that is based in sound social and public policy and leave the scriptual-based "morality" out of the public forum for fear of a dangerous precedent and back-lash. That's it. No more, no less am I saying.

As for smoking - excellent point. Still, smoking is much more heavily regulated than it was in the past - e.g. "smoke free" restaurants and the like - based upon changing social attitudes.

The words "cost benefit analysis" comes to mind. How much does it cost to put tobacco farmers out of business as opposed to taxing the health care system with additional lung cancer patients.

I guess one could come up with a similar formula for the gay marriage quesiton.

Yours,

kl


P.S. The "your God" comment was a crude way of making a point - sorry.

AMDG
Dear all in Christ,
I was gone for a while, and this topic grew in the meantime. I responded privately to Lemko Rusyn regarding my point about "homosexual persons. I think it is VERY important that the following be understood (it hasn't come out clearly on this thread at all):

Dear Lemko Rusyn in Christ,
I was gone for a while, and since you said it was your last post I decided to reposnd privately. I think you misunderstand my post a little bit. I was not trying to draw a distinction between "gay" and "homosexual" persons. What I was trying to say, albeit poorly, was this:
God will always provide the grace for us to lead lives in accordance with His teaching. It is sometimes very hard (believe me I know!), but we must keep trying, and trusting that He will help us to eventually overcome all our temptations and bad habits. God has revealed to us (and also allowed us to discover by the light of reason) that homosexual acts are opposed to the meaning of sexuality as intended by God. Therefore, to engage in homosexual acts is to violate our human nature, and alienate ourselves from God. God does provide the grace for EVERY person who suffers from homosexual concupiscience to eliminate homosexual actions from their lives. Thus, my point about "homosexual persons" was not that there is a difference between homosexuals and gays, but that EVERY homosexual CAN live chastely with God's help. They are not irrevocably predestined to live in homosexual relationships or to commit acts of sodomy. Therefore, we cannot posit "rights" to homosexual "marriage", or to the adoption of children, etc. etc.
Every heterosexual person also suffers from temptations and concupiscience. It is NOT easy to resist sexual temptation. But, as St. Paul says, "I can do all things in Him Who strengthens me." The key is to trust not in oneself, but in the compassionate power of God.
I am sure that Our Lord looks with especial compassion on those who are afflicted with homosexual drives--He loves all men and desires that all be saved.
God Bless, Lemko. Let us pray for each other.
In Jesus and Mary,
LatinTrad

Suppose a law, is enacted by a legislature (duly elected by the citizenry in a representative democracy) declares a certain behavior to be sufficiently undesired by the citizens of a state that criminal penalties attach to its performance.

Does or does not this will of the people constitute a legislative reason "based in sound social and public policy"?

This is again the point of the critter-burning argument. With the exception of ancillary strawman issues, there is no "social and public policy" to proscribe the behavior, save the mere desire of the people to prevent the activity. And despite the pooh-poohing of that argument, no one has refuted its primary conclusion.

In fact, once upon a time none other than Supreme Court rejectee Robert Bork was in a debate. On the subject of sexual morality, he took the point of view "... that it was no business of society what conduct that did not harm another person took place out of sight." It was left to liberal Yale Law professor Alex Bickel to pose the critter-torture hypothetical. Bork was forced to concede, "Bickel was right. Moral outrage is a sufficient ground for prohibitory legislation." [Bork, The Tempting of America]

-- Ed

I understand your point. The confusion was created by the fact it began with a statement of disagreement with my post. I did not write that Bush might have in mind something different than either a constitutional amendment or the statutory act signed by President Clinton. i stated his spokesperson was unable to offer anything but a dumb look on his face when asked what that might be.

If he has a secret plan, I eagerly await it.

No. After what I took as a period of hemming and hawing on your part(my impression, only; it may have just been that you had other things you wanted to mention) you finally did post that you supported the Texas law under review in Lawrence.

I am sure, to your credit, you are a man that rightly draws an important distinction between phyiscal acts against guilty persons done in a vigilante or unilaterial or extra-legal fashion and those done in a legal fashion. I am sure you believe that justice (as you see it) should be administered by a fair and competent legal system which protects the rights of the accused and demands proof of wrong-doing before any punishment is inflicted.

But as you draw a distinction between just and unjust discrimination, please don't pretend there is not legal and extra-legal phyiscal acts against persons.

The Texas law calls for physical acts to be taken against those found guilty before a court of law to have committed sodomy. The punishment is to be exposed to the brutality of prison life (Texas prison life, for that matter).

If that is not a physical action, I don't know what is. It certainly is something more physically fearful to me than any other act done against me (not that I am guilty of any crime).

Axios

Ed:

There is a political theory that the far left and the far right bend the "political spectrum" so far that they almost touch. Maybe it's up to those of us in the middle to deal with reality.

I will assume for a moment that your premise that it is possible to have such a vast majority of people be so morally opposed to something that doesn't hurt anybody that they want it criminalized. (HUGE assumotion, but you're getting it for the time being).

Still, your conlcusion that moral outrage is enough to legislate depends upon your definition of outrage.

If outrage means that people will take to the streets and riot, isn't prevention of that riot sufficient basis right there? But if outrage means people will get slightly PO'd for 30 seconds and then go on with their lives, what has one exactly accomplished by legislating against this "outrageous" conduct?

Back to reality. In the case of gay marriage, the Federal Government is (to the best of my observation) not seeking to "criminzalize" any specific behavior. This ain't the Georgia anti-sodomy law case.

Even if it was, legislation, like talk, is (relatively) cheap. It's the enforcement that is expensive and takes a toll on the public purse. Tell me, do you really want to pay for a "sex police?"

kl

AMDG
Dear all in Christ,
I don't know if anyone would agree with me, but I think the basis for criminalizing something has to be more than subjective "moral outrage," no matter how widespread. Acts of sodomy should be illegal because they involve moral evil that corrupts the entire polis. No such activity can be said to "not hurt anyone."
Concerning enforcement: it is a matter of prudence. Certainly, there are certain kinds of policing that would involve greater evils than the ones they are trying to prevent.
Comments?
In Christ and the Theotokos,
LatinTrad

John Derbyshire of the National Review makes a good point: "If we have reached the point where we need some government edict or constitutional amendment to tell us what marriage is, we have probably lost the game already."

"Acts of sodomy should be illegal because they involve moral evil that corrupts the entire polis. No such activity can be said to 'not hurt anyone'."

How does it corrupt the entire polis? I don't understand how this can be true. The implication is that hetersexual dyads are the norm. If this is true, then religious celibates are also to be considered subversives, no?

Blessings!

AMDG
Dear Dr. John,
Brother, in all charity, I am afraid that your arguments on this and other threads have abandoned the sure path of God's revelation, as enshrined in Scripture & Tradition and taught by the Church.
Religious celibates reserve themselves for God, wholly. St. Paul himself said "it is better not to touch a woman." The Pauline teaching on marriage is also clear: "Each husband should have his wife, and each wife her husband." Christ taught in Mat. 19: "Have you not heard that in the beginning, He created them male and female? and therefore a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife and the two become one flesh?"
Marriage is the state to which sexual union belongs. Sexual union in marriage is the expression of the spiritual covenant that was wrought before the altar of God.
Homosexuality destroys the polis. Ask any of the ancient philosophers, ask any of the prophets of the Old Testament, ask Christ himself, if the hand or the arm can be sick and not affect the whole body. Society's organic reality will have its revenge, no matter how much we try to retreat into a Lockean/Hobbesian fantasy world of artificial social compacts between autonomous individuals.

In Jesus and Mary,
LatinTrad

Dear Johan,

Thank you for your posting. I guess that you forgot who wrote the following to you:

"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....

... 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?"

My name is Steve and I wrote those words for reasons that I explained to you. You apparently chose not to address the issues that I raised there. For example, what is the message that you suggest that God is sending when children are infected with aids? What message is He sending when there is a low number of practicing lesbians who are not so afflicted?

Of course, you are not required to do that.

Nothing that you posted in your response indicates the research basis for your claim about the incidence of aids among homosexual persons or heterosexual persons. That was the focus of my posting. Is there such evidence?

Thank you for the link to the data confirming the higher incidence of suicide among gay persons. That is what I have seen before when I read the reports that you cite. If I read it correctly, it supports what I have been saying about suicide among gay people, specifically among teens.

That seems to be the point of what you report when you posted:

"Being gay, lesbian or bisexual has been linked with a higher risk of suicidal behaviour. It is thought that this higher risk is due to the impact of negative societal attitudes towards homosexuality and bisexuality.
Longitudinal research from the Christchurch Health and Development Study has found that gay, lesbian and bisexual young people were more likely to have a range of mental disorders. Amongst this group, suicidal thinking was 5.4 times more likely and suicide attempt 6.2 times more likely than amongst heterosexual young people (Fergusson, Horwood and Beautrais 1999).
Australian research has found that most suicide attempts amongst gay males occurred after the person had self-identified as gay, but before having a same-sex experience and before publicly identifying themselves as gay (Nicholas and Howard, 1998)."

If this snippet of result (Nicholas and Howard, 1998) is correct, most suicide attempts in the population under study, occurred before any sinful activity took place.

The other research findings that you cite, concludes that even when the target population, gay males, is located in a society that appears to be much more tolerant, the suicide rate is higher for homosexuals.

There is suggestion that some form of paranoia exists. If what my friends tell me is true, and based on assualts and murders of gay men reported in the news has been and is now correct, that seems perfectly logical.

What the research that you have provided does not address is the possibility that the "paranoia" might be reality-based on the long term memory of a segment of society. If I understand what my friends are saying, that target population, gay males, has has historically been treated in a way that would lead them to expect that many of the persons in the larger society would do them harm.

Is it not possible, then, that the "paranoia" is reality based in that sense?

In any case, none of the studies, as I understand them suggest that it is the nature of homosexuality to lead one to committ suicide. Perhaps I misunderstand. It seems to me that as the first part of your reference says, "It is thought that this higher risk is due to the impact of negative societal attitudes towards homosexuality and bisexuality."

Thanks again for hearing me out.

Steve

Dear Administrator,

Thank you as always for your clarification and your comments.

You posted:

"PS1: Did you read the links I have provided in earlier posts? If you do I think you will appreciate my position better. Please respond to this question!"

I am sorry that I could not respond as quickly as you did. It was not for lack of interest or lack of something to say!

Yes. I did read the links that you've posted. I read the full links after I downloaded them. I always do.

Please assume that I do. I wonder why you can't do that after all of the discussions that we've had?

I even saw someone from those who are against gay marriage on TV Sunday in passing and the response from an advocate from a gay civil rights organization. :rolleyes:

I am not sure why you have concluded that I do not understand your position or the position and teaching of the Church or the positions of groups which oppose marriage for gays or the positions of these who are working for the opposite goal.

I have never suggested that I do not agree with the teaching of the Church. I will not say that again.

I have never said that Christians do not or should not bring our moral teachings in to the civil arena. I will not say that again.

What I have said is quite the contrary. I have said that in the civil arena, we must find support and evidence that will convince the growing number of our fellow citizens who do not accept Judeo Christian ethic as a basis for law making. As you pointed out the time when a clear majority do accept it is quickly passing, if it's not gone.

My concern is and has been for how we Christians continue to have influence and impact the legislative process in ways that will bring about what it is that we beleive to be true and correct and moral. I have said that appeal to revelation is quite useless in regard to many of our citizens since many of our fellow voters and many legislators do not believe it.

Should we appeal to revelation, yes. Should it be our only arguement, no!

It seems that if I cannot accept your assertion that the recent Supreme Court decision that struck down the Texas law will cause a domino like effect, I am in the position of supporting the legalization of all sorts of heinous behavior.

I believe that our active presence and the active presence of other believers in the civil arena is the best way to ensure that paedophilia is not decriminalized. Of course we must be an active and organized presence.

Can I assure you that that approach will work with 100% certitude? Is there anything or anyone outside of God of which we can be certain 100% of the time? All that I can point out is that the approach of whose demise you bemoan has brought us to this point.

As someone said elsewhere, if we have to define marriage, the battle is already lost. So what to do? Do we bemoan that fact? Do we decry the political orgainizations of opponents to our position because they do a better job of getting out their message or their troops?

OR!

Do we work to ensure that all the rules of social justice work for all citizens so that when we oppose injustice, it makes sense? I wonder if the issue of homosexual marriage would have reached the place where it has if each person could designate a person as beneficiary for his or her social security benefits, for example.

We have to work harder and smarter, it seems to me! I addressed these concerns earlier in the posting of 08/02 at 9:38.

The nature of secular government can be a blessing to us, I believe. Having a strong tradition of secularization in government can make it easier to protect the right of all of us who are religious to say what we need to say. It is sad to say, but sometimes I wonder if it takes a secuar government to help keep some religious people from killing eachother over religious differences. Indonesia's civilian government begruddging involvement between its Muslim majority and its Christian minority leaps to mind.

A strong secular approach to civil government can also have another benefit. It seems to me that it should help us be more confident that the teachings of another religion will not be the single basis on which law is made as is true in islamic republics, in general, no?

But back to the topic of this thread.

The positions that I hold are the result of much reading and thinking and praying that was initiated by the fact that gay teens are killing themselves at a rate that is quite astonishing. That has led me to the issues of social justice, etc....

It has led me to raise a question that I've asked a couple of times in this thread or in others.

Here it is again:

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

I respect the positions that you express. Simply because I might disagree with them does not mean that I do not understand them. I do not simply dismiss the arguements of others not, of course, that you do either.

But, as has become my habit apparently, I digress.

Thank you for hearing me out.

Steve


PS: You asked for thoughts on what you linked to.

The approach in the Vatican's Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recoginiton to Unions between Homosexual Persons reflect an approach that acknowledges the need to work in the civil arena using elements from reason, the biological order, and the social order to deal with convincing others of the value of what the Church is teaching.

The use of what appear to be a kind of refined talking points is good it seems to me. Of course the Vatican has a long history of working in the civil arena, it was after all the civil arena in the Papal States! Today it's adapting to dealing in a secular civil arena, seems to me.

I found the article entitled "What Marriage is For" to have mixed value. It makes claims that are based on things Like a new marriage movement a reason for working against gay marriage right now! Some, given the overall statistics on marriage duration and sequential poligamy, might question the validity of that element of the arguement, for example. I'm not sure that it will convince those who are unconvinced of its premise before they read it.

Both the links were valuable and I thank you for linking them here.

Please go back and read my previous posts. I made three clear arguments: 1) that there should be no constitutional right to engage in homosexual sexual activity, 2) that the people of Texas have the right to enact prohibitions against undesired behavior (including incarceration) and that 3) such prohibitions should be applied fairly.

I have never pretended such. Is your continuing distortion of what I have written to make it appear that I am supporting something unjust purposeful? I have consistently argued that it is always morally wrong for individuals to harass or do physical violence against homosexual individuals. Christians must always witness what is right whenever the opportunity present itself. This witness must always include condemnation of those individuals who unjustly discriminate, especially when they use physical violence.

I have also been consistent in arguing that the State has the right to discriminate justly against unwanted immoral behavior. If the State of Texas desires to prohibit homosexual activity and incarcerate people for that activity then it should have that right. If they choose to alter or eliminate such penalties they should be free do so. Justice, in this issue, would be for such penalties to be similar to other crimes of a similar nature.

All sin corrupts the entire community just as a drop of poison contaminates an entire well. This is a well-known concept in Christian theology, both Eastern and Western. When we sin personally we develop a tolerance for not only our personal sin but also the sin of others. As this tolerance for sin grows in our personal lives it also grows in the life of the community. This tolerance of sin is not good for either the individual or the community. If such a tolerance for sin is allowed to grow eventually allowances are made for all types of sin.

Heterosexual pairing is the norm for marriage. God created us this way and His Laws leave no room for doubt that all sexual activity belongs in (heterosexual) marriage.

Religious celibates would not be considered to be subversive. They do not pair with other members of the same gender. Most form communities in which they work together to serve God. I don�t see how anyone could consider this subversive.

Steve is quite correct. HIV/AIDS is more predominant among the heterosexual community (especially in Africa). It is only in North American and Europe that more homosexuals get this disease than heterosexuals.

It is wrong to believe that HIV/AIDS is somehow a direct punishment for sin. Yes, choices do have consequences and those engaging in sexual activity outside of marriage (the main way HIV is contracted) should understand and realize the risk they are taking. And, yes, the result of the sin of Adam and Eve is sickness and suffering in the world. But to twist this into the suggestion that the resulting disease is a direct form of personal punishment from God is wrong.

Steve,

Thanks for your post.

Since you never acknowledged or made reference to whether you had read it, I was curious.

I apologize for not understanding your posts. We are in agreement that we must find support and evidence to convince the secular society that Judeo-Christian ethics are the best way to organize a society.

I respect that you do not accept my assertion. Look at it from another perspective. If there is already a constitutional right to homosexual activity how can one justly legislate against incest, polygamy, adultery, adult/child sex, and etc.? On what basis does a society determine that one type of activity is acceptable and another unacceptable? For Christians, is it not hypocritical to oppose one type of deviant behavior while ignoring or accepting another?

I disagree. It is the abandonment of Judeo-Christian morality as the foundation of our societal morality that has brought us to this point.

America has always had a secular government. Our Founding Fathers created a secular nation rooted in English Common Law, which in turn has its roots in the Ten Commandments (Judeo-Christian morality). Societal acknowledgement of a God-given standard of good and evil does not automatically turn a nation into a theocracy.

The proper response of a Christian is to tell a teen with homosexual tendencies that that he (or she) is was wonderfully created by God, that God loves him, that we love him, and that such inclinations can be changed (or at least managed). We must reach out to such individuals and show them Christ�s love. We can never suggest to them that it is acceptable to act upon such inclinations since God has given us Laws to live by.

Can you please share the specifics of how you believe Christians should treat homosexual individuals? And contrast it with how we should treat individuals who engage in other forms of undesired behavior?

Admin

PS: Thanks for your comments on the linked articles. I found much food for thought in them.