Title: Gay Marriage? PART 2
Tags:
Blog Entry: This blog is the second part of the my gay marriage blog from Facebook: [br][br] C: jennifer, i'm so proud that you're my friend and i admire how much you stand for your faith. hope i was some help. lemme know if you need some back up, lol. ;) [br] [br] C: goodness gracious! All I have to say is that each person is entitled to hold his own beliefs and opinions. An opinion cannot be worng. It is just a personal thought. Although there are many oposing opinions being thrown around there is no need to attack one another for them. Holding a certian opinion which may be different from someone else's does not give the somone else the right to attack a person for it. I am often accused (and here jennifer is being accused) of being closed minnded. How can we be close minded when we are simply stating an opinion and allowing you to have your own? I am so annoyed with being called 'judemental' or 'closed minded' simply for expressing an opinion contrary to someone else's. THE END. [br] [br] C: Wow. Sorry I missed the first 40 hours of action here. OK, well I honestly only got about halfway through reading the comments, but I'll try to read the rest later. So far, I think there are several issues that need to be further addressed... [br] 1) The definition of love. People are throwing that word around all over this page (and throughout real-life conversation) as through it needs no explanation whatsoever, that it is completely self-explanatory and obviously demands certain things while curtailing others. If that were true, then we would not be squabbling here at all. The late great Pope John Paul II said, "Love is not merely a feeling;" (if it were, then Christ's call to love our neighbor at all times would be pretty empty--you think God's ultimate request was that we cultivate an emotion? on the contrary, God's was a call to ACTION); "it is an act of will that consists of preferring, in a constant manner, the good of others to the good of oneself." What that means is that it is selflessness in action meant to preserve the true good of the other person. That leaves some ambiguity as to the nature or identity of the "true good," and I will return to that momentarily. [br] 2) The nature of choice. So, our call is one of love, and love is an act that involves choosing the good. Do you see what that entails? In order for us to "choose the good," there must be some alternative (AKA the bad). Otherwise, we aren't really choosing. It's not a choice if there's only one option. Christians preach that God is love, that he created us out of love and for the purpose of loving. That's where free will comes into play. We weren't given freedom because good and bad are equal so we can just select whichever we prefer. We were given the capacity to choose (choice is a CAPACITY, not a right--you either have it or you don't) that we might choose the good over the evil. [br] 3) The concept of natural law. This has bearing even for non-Christians, as I realize many of you are. I could get into Catholic teaching of God's divine law or its specific application in church law, but church law is applicable only to those who recognize the jurisdiction of the Church (as many of you Catholics apparently do not--might want to check on exactly what it means to be Catholic, something defined by the Church and not by you as an individual). But anyway, natural law is the set of rules regarding good and evil that are known to all people regardless of religion. Does this mean they know that they know these things? No. We know a lot of things that we don't know we know (see Plato's description of Socrates in the Meno demonstrating for the slave boy that, although he did not know he knew the Pythagorean theorem, he knew every step of the proof, and therefore had all the knowledge necessary to use the theorem). [br] (For a more complete list of reasons we may act as though we don't know this law written on the heart, see the works of J. Budziszewski, a philosophy professor at UT, called What We Can't Not Know, Written on the Heart, and The Revenge of Conscience). [br] No, what is an example of an application of this natural law? There are certain actions and attitudes that all societies have agreed upon as evil and intrinsically wrong. All have condemned the deliberate killing of innocent human life. They may justify certain actions by claiming that their act was not "deliberate" or that the victim was either not "innocent," not "human," or not "alive," but they agree that the deliberate killing of innocent human life is wrong. Also, all societies have had some form of marriage. Some may be polygamous while others monogamous, but they still recognized the institution of marriage. [br] C. S. Lewis says, "Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud for double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might as well just try to imagine a country where two and two made five." He is demonstrating the universality of natural law. Sure, assorted societies have disputed its applications, but the very existence of those specific applications demonstrates that there is something beyond those applications that is BEING APPLIED, something that transcends each instance of doing good or doing bad, and those universal absolutes are GOOD and BAD. (Plato talks about these A LOT in relation to art being a specific application of the universal BEAUTY--very fascinating). [br] 4) The nature of good and evil. So natural law shows man what is good and what is not. As the title "natural" implies, something is good if it acts in accordance with our human nature and is bad if it acts contrary to our nature. This obviously begs the important question of what exactly human nature is. Many claim we are nothing but animals. If that were true, there could be no good or evil, and speaking of them would be nonsense. Human nature involves both intelligence and the capacity to choose, AKA free will. Though many animals demonstrate great intelligence, none show any evidence of true freedom; they are simply conditioned by their genetics and environment. If man too is simply a combination of genes and environment, I shouldn't be writing--in fact, NONE OF US SHOULD. Without freedom to choose the good, there ceases to be any good in relation to us. Debate ends, and we simply do whatever helps us survive (or whatever instinct happens to be strongest at that moment). [br] So good is about acting in accord with our nature. Most societies have recognized that the very existence of a human nature points to a design for humankind, and a design implies a DESIGNER. That was one of the demonstrations of the reasonability for having faith for many great philosophers and theologians throughout history, BUT today that is not our focus, and though we may not all agree about what a human nature suggests about the numinous reality, we should be able to agree that such a thing as human nature exists. [br] So let's look at the current issue: homosexuality. Is it fitting with our nature? Some say, "Yeah, it's natural, you see it in nature with animals sometimes." Well, okay, if that's what we mean by natural--that it occurs in nature--then fine. But if that's our definition of natural, then cancer too is natural, because we see it in the animal kingdom as well. I think we all agree that cancer is bad, and therefore, that faulty definition of natural does not in any way imply "good," it simply implies "real." So, if, as I had previously suggested, we define natural as what works in accordance with our nature, and homosexuality is something that operates in relation to the sexual aspect of our nature, then we need to examine the nature of human sexuality. [br] 5) The nature of sex. What is the purpose of sex? One popular answer today is pleasure, which seems to make sense given that sex indeed produces pleasure. But just because pleasure is one consequence/result of sex, does that make it its purpose? [br] It might be easier to examine that question using something other than sex for a moment, something whose nature our society seems to have maintained a better (though far from perfect) grasp on: eating. Food tastes good. Is that eating's purpose or just a consequence? I argue that it is a consequence--not a bad one necessarily, but a consequence nonetheless. If tasting something good were the purpose of eating, then when presented with a delicious poison, we would drink. You say, that's ridiculous, and I agree, but that is because both of us recognize that, when discussing food, something transcends taste: sustenance. Therefore, I would argue that the purpose of eating is not to taste something good but rather to nourish our bodies. [br] Now I've just lost the respect of a lot of you, I know--that's if I'd maintained it up until now, of course--because we live in a society that treats pregnancy like it's a disease. Most insurance plans now cover pregnancy-related costs the same way they handle cancer. We have contraception to act as "disease prevention" and abortion as a "cure" in case the prevention fails. [br] Nonetheless, biologically, procreation is the purpose of sex. Guess what: not one of us would be here if sex didn't result in pregnancy. (Even if you were conceived by some alternate means of conception, I can guarantee your great-grandmother wasn't, so you still wouldn't be here unless someone's sex resulted in pregnancy). [br] Further evidence of the reality of the procreative dimension of sexuality is seen within the gay rights movement itself. As soon as an area recognizes any kind of "gay marriage" (or civil union, etc.), the next item on the agenda for gay rights proponents is legalizing adoption by gay couples. [br] Let's call procreation the FIRST DIMENSION OF HUMAN SEXUALITY (I'll illustrate 1.5 more as I go on--you'll see what the .5 means). [br] Now, up to a point you can argue that animals share in the first dimension of sexuality--they too use sex for reproduction (I tend to refer to animal's use of this dimension as reproduction and man's as procreation simply to distinguish between a sociological term that focuses on function in animals and a theological term that focuses on personhood in man). The next dimension, if at all present in animal sexuality, is certainly much less demonstrable there than in human sexuality. [br] Another typical answer to the question "What is the purpose of sex?" besides pleasure is "love." Now, I have provided the definition of love according to JPII already--"an act of will that consists of preferring, in a constant manner, the good of others to the good of oneself"--but I do not think, by and large, that that is what people mean when they say it is a purpose of sex. [br] I think they are talking about attraction, infatuation. There are biological specifications to be made about the chemicals at work in the body when man is reacting to infatuation as opposed to the more developed stages of attraction, but, not being a biologist myself, I cannot provide them. However, I think that in noticing that sex seems to bond two infatuated people together is still very useful to us here in this analysis. [br] Sex has a binding power, a power to unite the people who are having sex. Granted, if a person is promiscuous, over time that bonding may weaken so much that it appears to disappear entirely, but given that (as I will argue) promiscuity is not the correct use of man's sexuality, we can still consider this binding power and list it amongst our purposes of sexuality, given that, in addition to being a creature of biology, man is also a creature of emotion. [br] Therefore, let us call this unitive purpose the SECOND DIMENSION OF HUMAN SEXUALITY. [br] Now, onto the ".5" I referred to earlier. Allow me to preface this by saying that I do not believe this third dimension is any less important than the first two (in fact, I would put more weight on it than either of the others). HOWEVER, given that it is a concept that becomes demonstrable not from secular philosophy, as the first two did, but from Christian--specifically Catholic--theology, it is not something that everyone will readily recognize and will therefore not form a major part of my investigation later on. [br] This third purpose of sexuality is sacramental, meaning that it both mirrors God's will and unites the couple with God. We see this mirroring in Christ's description of Himself as the bridegroom and the Church as his bride. We will call this the THIRD DIMENSION OF HUMAN SEXUALITY. However, as I said, I will not be fixating on this aspect. [br] So, to review, love demands that we choose good over evil, and the good of others of the good of ourselves. Illuminated by the nature of freedom, natural law illustrates what the good is: anything that works in accordance with our nature. And finally, with regards to the sexual aspect of our nature, the two purposes of human sexuality that we will be investigating are the PROCREATIVE and the UNITIVE. [br] Now finally the introductory material is behind us and we can actually address the topic at hand: homosexuality. There are two aspects of the blanket term homosexuality (a term that can surprisingly be pretty ambiguous) that I think would best be addressed separately: homosexual actions and homosexual desires. [br] I will begin with homosexual actions, seeing as they are much more concrete and easier to work with in relation to our two previously established dimensions of sexuality. [br] Test #1: Do homosexual actions fulfill the procreative dimension of human sexuality? Because sodomy (which refers to both anal and oral sex--and YES, that does indeed include heterosexuals as well) is sterile by its very nature (it takes an egg and a sperm to make a baby, and sodomy does not provide those two key elements and is therefore not open to life). Sterility and procreation are polar opposites, so I think the result of Test #1 is clear: homosexuality does NOT fulfill the procreative dimension of human sexuality. [br] Though in truth I could end my analysis there and say, "Case closed, homosexuality is unnatural (which means it does not act in accordance with our human nature, remember?), and that's the end of that." In a way, that is the end of that. By failing to comply with that one dimension of human sexuality, homosexuality is effectively proved unnatural, which we have established translates to WRONG. However, I would like to continue because I find the second test very interesting and very telling. [br] Test #2: Do homosexual actions fulfill the unitive dimension of human sexuality? Does sodomy between homosexuals unite them as we have observed heterosexual sex does? This test is not as black and white as Test #1. Sodomy seems to bind them together in some ways: they experience something deeply personal in each other's presence--indeed, with each other's aid, they become vulnerable with one another in a way they are not vulnerable with other people, and they feel closer to each other after the act. So at first glance, the answer SEEMS to be that sodomy too is unitive. [br] However, there is more to examine. That sex by its very nature produces intimacy does not prove that all instances of sexuality fulfill the unitive dimension of sexuality. In What We Can't Not Know, J. Budziszewski observes that "although [sex] consummates the friendship of wife and husband, it perverts the friendship of comrades, just as it perverts the friendship of parent and child." Whether or not his conclusion about sex between comrades is correct (that is what we are trying to find out), we can hopefully agree that sex between parent and child does not properly unify the two parties. [br] Therefore, not all sexual actions fulfill the unitive dimension of sexuality. So, what is required for a sexual relationship to PROPERLY unify? Well, who remembers how we previously defined love? For those who need a refresher, we said that love is "an act of will that consists of preferring, in a constant manner, the good of others to the good of oneself." So if natural law calls us ultimately to love, what does that imply for us here? [br] It implies that, in order to properly unify, sex must somehow assist the parties involved in moving their concentration from "the good of oneself" to "the good of others." True unity involves moving the gaze from oneself, forsaking selfishness. [br] Before venturing into the realm of homosexuality again, let's take a moment to examine whether or not heterosexual sex does this. Looking at committed spouses, for example, it certainly seems to. They care about one another in a way that goes far beyond feelings--many are willing to give their life for the other, and the sexual bond increases that care and unity--and remember that those are not simply feelings but that they have action backing them. So, that shows that heterosexual sex has the capacity to fulfill the unitive dimension of sexuality, moving the gaze of each party from himself to his partner. [br] But does heterosexual sex always work that way? I don't think it's too difficult to see that it does not. Take for example a man and woman who meet at a nightclub and end up having an anonymous one night stand. Their sex was entirely motivated by selfishness--albeit mutual selfishness--and their sex only allowed further growth of the selfless drive within them, allowing one to use the other and essentially objectify him, treating the other as a means to his pleasure. So no, heterosexual sex is NOT always unitive. [br] Okay, so now we move onto homosexual actions with regard to the unitive dimension once again. Clearly, a similar situation to the previous one night stand example could arise in the homosexual sphere, so undoubtedly homosexual sex is not always unitive. But can it ever be? [br] In agreement with J. Budziszewski, I would argue that it cannot. Man and woman are different but complementary by their very natures--their genitalia demonstrate this reality, as do their emotional and logical approaches to life. (I am not denying that men cannot at times behave in ways that are feminine and vice versa, but that is the exception and not the rule. In fact, it cannot even be understood without understanding the rule in the first place). So, by being different but complementary to each other, man and woman can move their focus from themselves to their partner in the act of sex. [br] However, with two men or two women, all they are doing is having sex with one who is like them, which does not remove the focus from oneself at all but rather puts the focus on another who is like them, putting their gaze on someone with the same traits as them, and thus essentially keeping their selfish drive intact (perhaps even increasing it). [br] Perhaps you dislike my argument for Test #2. If so, that's fine. I will grant you that the data contained in it is much less easily observable than the evidence I have presented in other parts of this analysis. However, even if you believe that homosexual actions can fulfill the unitive dimension of sexuality, by nature of their failing Test #1 and thus failing to fulfill the procreative dimension of human sexuality, homosexual actions are indeed unnatural and thus bad. [br] If we conducted a Test #3, it would be pretty easy to prove that homosexual actions are not sacramental in the Christian--particularly Catholic--sense, but I will refrain. [br] So, I have demonstrated the immorality of homosexual acts using philosophy and reason and without the use of theology. From here, my analysis will become much more theologically intensive, so if you do not wish to continue reading, you are under no obligation to. However, for those who do have an interest--whether Christian or not--I will continue. [br] Let us move our analysis onto homosexual desires. Are they wrong as well? Well, let us recall what it means to say something is wrong: that is acts in contradiction to our human nature. I would argue that any desire that cannot be satisfied in a moral way is unnatural. To emphasize this point, I will look to the only record we have of a community that was totally in accord with nature: the Garden of Eden. [br] I am not a Biblical literalist. I do not guarantee or even necessarily believe that the fall of man happened in the way Genesis presents it. However, being Catholic--my Catholic identity was readily apparent before now, I assume--I do believe that Scripture is inspired by God and does indeed have a lot to teach us. [br] So, Eden. When Adam and Eve were in the Garden, did they experience any desires that could not be satisfied in a moral way? Not until Satan, the tempter, entered the picture. Though because they were free beings they indeed had the capacity to choose the bad over the good, unlike the rest of us, Adam and Eve were not predisposed to choose the bad. Though they were the cause of concupiscence, they were not initially slaves to it themselves. Therefore, I believe that all desires not able to be morally satisfied are indeed unnatural. [br] That conclusion, however, raises an important question. Is everything that is unnatural/wrong sinful? No, it is not. Right and wrong have to do with the moral quality of something. Sin has to do with the blameworthiness of the person involved in that "something." In order for something to be sinful, three conditions must be met: wrongness of the action, knowledge of the wrongness, and freedom to do the action. [br] So, are homosexual desires sinful? Some might instantly say, "Of course not!" now, claiming that no one is free in that situation because none of us have control over our desires. Not so fast though. I will admit that, to a point, some desires are beyond our control, but not all are, despite what we'd like to believe. If you flood your mind with garbage from raunchy TV, you are naturally going to have some desires arise from that. We have a lot more control over our desires than we admit--we just have to be proactive in our thinking. [br] So are homosexual desires always wrong? Probably not. Sadly, in this fallen world, we become disposed to some things that we would not like to become disposed to. However, I believe that homosexual desires can indeed be our own fault and can thus be sinful. We need to be very aware and try to purify ourselves in all things at all times. [br] One final thought: In spite of the immorality of homosexual actions, our call as Christians is to embrace and comfort those who struggle with homosexual desires and urges. We are to hate the sin but love the sinner, and it is important to remind ourselves that we are all sinners and that a person is not defined by their sexual urges. Jason Evert says it best: "I have friends who have homosexual temptations, but I do not speak of them as ‘gay’ or even as ‘homosexuals.’ To do so would be to define them by a label, as if that is all there is to them, and that is all they will ever be. We should not define ourselves by our struggles. ‘Homosexual’ is not what you are. For one thing, you are a guy with many talents, struggles, gifts, and other characteristics, but most important of all, you are a son of God, and that is your identity. Therefore, do not identify yourself with your brokenness but with your calling." [br] Mother Teresa was known for welcoming in people who struggle with homosexual desires and caring for them. One day, “someone asked [her] for her views on homosexuality. She stopped the interview and told the reporters that if they had any more questions about homosexuals, they would refer to them from now on as ‘Friends of Jesus.’ This is how the Church sees those who carry this cross” (Evert—132). Mankind must follow her example, trying to end homosexual practices but, above all, to care for those who struggle with these unnatural desires. [br] Thanks for reading. God bless you all. Never stop seeking Truth. Feel free to message me with any questions/concerns. Again, God bless. [br] In His name, [br] ~Michael Hannon[br] ~Kairos XXVI[br] [br] L: .... Is this really happening? [br] Its silly to be fighting over this, it was silly to post this on facebook, and it was silly for everyone to be in such a ridiculous rage over something that one person has to say. Who are we to tell people what they can and Can't do, who are we to quote from a book that has no definite interpretation, and who the hell are we to tell people how to feel. I love men obviously, and those of you who know me would never suggest otherwise. However, people can love other members of the same sex. Its happened, its true and yes there is a such thing as being gay and lesbian. If its from the media, how come homosexuality traces back to g-d effin knows when B.C. ages? It happens. As for sexual relations, I love sex... sex is great its awesome and those of you who have had it know what im talkin about. Now... B/c there is such a thing as being gay and lesbians, and they are people just like everyone else, they too probably enjoy sex as well..and just like heterosexuals want to get married for someone they feel close to, OMG... SO DO GAYS/LESBIANS... WHY?? BECAUSE THEY ARE PEOPLE TOO. THERES NO ROCKET SCIENCE INVOLVED!!!! omgsh I am brilliant. As for giving it up before im formally commited to someone, oh well. Im jewish, not christian, and I'm not condemning christians but we don't make nearly as big a deal about this as some do. Goodnight, shalom and happy superbowl[br] [br] C: I'd enjoy a lot of things that still aren't good. And in resposne to the "who are we to say" etc... [br] Tolerance is a good thing, a virtue in fact, but it is is not blind--we are not supposed to tolerate everything. Should we tolerate rape, murder, etc.? You say OF COURSE NOT, and I agree, but that's evidence that not everything is to be tolerated. Tolerance has value in that we must put up with some evils in order to prevent greater ones. But why be intolerant of our beliefs in the name of tolerance? [br] [br] For more, read True Tolerance: Liberalism and the Necessity of Judgment. [br] And if you want a secular argument, check out what I posted because I didn't use the Bible ONCE in my analysis of homosexuality until I had already demonstrated by secular philosophy exclusive to no religion that homosexual acts are immoral. Thanks. [br] [br] L: I don't read. I am in college. I drink, sleep and study. I dont use big grammar. Rape, Murder are involuntary. Harm is being inflicted. Gay people dont hurt others. Unless a gay person rapes and murders.... then i guess thats pretty intolerable. My question, is why the shit did jennifer post this knowing that it would hurt so many people, some of which she is well aware are lesbians [br] [br] C: She didn't post it AT anyone. Why are you responding knowing that your response may offend Jennifer and others who share her beliefs? You're doing so because you believe that some things are important enough to stand up for even if someone takes offense, and it's the same with her. [br] And what makes consent our ultimate standard of good? If I ask to be tortured, is it then good for someone to torture me? [br] [br] L: As for your torture question, only in bed. I believe in love and people , and I dont post things showing my disgust for the Catholic religion, because I know it would hurt people. I have more than enough opinions that do not need to be shared because of the harm they would cause to the other party members involved. This was unnecessary [br] [br] C: When our nation is on the verge of legalizing something that she believes is wrong, it becomes completely necessary to speak up. Like it or not (I certainly don't), this a political issue and one that both sides should be able to speak on. If the USA was on the verge of allying itself with the Vatican, I'd expect you to share every belief you had about the Church and its supposed evils. This note was not a stab at anyone--it was a response it a governmental issue that is very real to all of us right now. [br] [br] L: Like it or not, we have no power over it. [br] You, from what I see, are still a minor, and can not even vote. [br] [br] C: She's exercising the somewhat limited power that she does have, and not that it's any of your business, but I've been 18 for 7 months and voted this past November (not that that's really relevant--are we really stooping to ad hominem arguments now?). [br] [br] L: sweety, i guess this argument is unfair because I'm an asshole, and a very successful and rising model. I'm also a ridiculously brilliant scientist who was employed at vanderbilt university as a sophomore, and I know more than most graduate students know about pathology and DNA extraction and mutations. Bragging much, not even. I'm Lauren fucking Camp.... I love people, and I know what I can and can not control. Half of my photographers and homosexual, and my bosses are as well. Its damaging to ones pride, ones self esteem to hear "shit talkers" raise such unnecessary arguments. If two girl want to make out... whatever? Does it really matter? How is fighting about that going to help us with the war, or global warming? its just stupid... [br] [br] C: We aren't shit talking. If you want to debate me, read my argument. I addressed everything you said. At least read the last two posts. And FYI, I'm a fashion designer. I know A LOT of homosexuals. Some of them are the devoutest Catholics I know, and one is one of my closest friends who I love very dearly. I do NOT hate homosexuals. I think homosexual actions are wrong, and I think accepting homosexuality as an identity is dangerous, but that does not make the person someone any of us should despise. We are to care for them as we would care for anyone else, lovingly and compassionately (meaning, literally, we should suffer with them). [br] [br] C: Do you think homosexuality is a choice or are people born with this 'idea' permenantly? [br] [br] C: I think the tendency towards homosexual desires, though probably not a birth trait as science has repeatedly indicated, do most likely arise psychologically from things we experience at a point in our life early enough to where we probably could not control what we were experiencing. However, acting on homosexual desires--or on ANY desires, for that matter--is always a choice. That's why this is not a civil rights issue. The gay rights movement isn't fighting for recognition and approval of the tendency for desire, but rather for the recognition and approval of ACTING ON those desires. [br] And we're debating because what I am attacking as evil is an action, not the person who commits the action. [br] [br] C: Thanks guys. Yes, i do believe that if we read the whole argument, we will notice that several times many of us STRESS that God hates the sin and not the sinner, and I myself have stressed that I completely live by that stance. And if our excuse that "we're too busy" or "lazy" to read the WHOLE argument, there is no point in responding, seeing as all of these comments have been responded to in earlier posts. [br] [br] C: I know you know this already, but I guess I'll go ahead any type it. The Bible may have not been written by God up in heaven and then sent to us on Earth, but the Bible was inspired by God to man. We DO know how God feels through the Bible. I have also said this before, but we cannot pick and choose what we want to believe out of the Bible. Either the Bible is Truth, or it isn't. We believe that the Bible is the word of God. Does this mean that some things in the Bible are true and some aren't? Its just like one saying that they believe Jesus was the Son of God, but not believing something He said. Does this mean that the sinless Son of God was a lier? And the fact that the Bible mentions homosexual activity more than once confirms it. You yourself claim to be Jewish, but I think you might be forgetting that the book that I got that passage out of is one of the first books of the Old Testament, Leviticus, a book that is still revered by the Jews today. And I please ask you to respect my wishes pertaining to language. You may speak how you like anywhere, but seeing as this is my facebook and my note, I ask you to respect what I have said. [br] I know I have posted these quotes up before, but I know some of you havent taken the time to read the whole thing: [br] [br] Lv 18:22 No man is to have sexual relations with another man; God hates that. [br] [br] Lv 20:13 If a man has sexual relations with another man, they have done a disgusting thing, and both shall be put to death. They are responsible for their own death. [br] These passages are right from the Old Testament; nothing was altered. In a Jewish point of view (as well as Christian), this is the Word of God. This book is also where Jesus got "love your neighbor as yourself" from. Does this mean that Leviticus is right in one aspect and wrong in the other? Or that God inspired one part, but not the other? Jews throughout history have revered God's Word, building large temples and allowing only the High Priests to even enter the same room as the Scriptures. [br] I know many of you are going to attack me on bringing the Bible in again, but I have only brought these quotes because a commenter mentioned God. [br] [br] L: Jews are not overly obsessed with homosexuality. We love everyone, and embrace eachother. We also like sex... a lot. And yea the Torah says a lot of crap, but we don't take it all literal from a book that was written g-d knows how long ago. DOnt tell me how to be jewish either; i think i would know[br] [br] C: So which parts should we take literally from the Old Testament? Are we not to take the Commandments literally? Should "thou shalt not kill" not be taken literally? If I understand correctly, the Jews still celebrate many of the ancient traditions of their ancestors, such as circumcision. If the Jews as a whole decided that the Scriptures were outdated because it was written so long ago, one would think that circumcision would be the first thing to go. [br] We also have to keep in mind that God is timeless. Back then, he knew everything that was to come, and he inspired the Bible accordingly. [br] [br] C: >.< 1. I really haven't seen any "gay-bashing" going on in this thread, so don't accuse anyone of gay-bashing...there hasn't been any threats or slurs or anything that have been thrown around in that manner[br] 2. ""I didn't touch that little boy in confession"" is just as bad as saying "I love shopping with gays".[br] 3. Faith is what helps people believe all that "mumbo jumbo" that is in the Bible. Religion, any religion, is based mainly on faith, without it; we are lost. Faith enables Catholics to believe that God inspired those who wrote the Bible, without solid proof. [br] okay, well an example of catholics not doing whats right...theres countless numbers of teens who've had premarital sex, thats an example......Priests touching little boys, although an example, is still stereotyping priests as child molestors, just like "i love shopping w/ gays" stereotypes gays as fun to shop with. [br] Faith takes you as far as you allow it to L: wow... this stupid... [br] [br] C: In response to the argument that there is no universal absolute and that our personal interpretation is all that matters: [br] I will argue that there are set moral objective absolutes is our world. Some claim otherwise, that there are no moral objectives and that everything is relative. If that is true, if there is no such thing as "good" or "bad," if they are simply questions of preference, then debate is stupid and we are left with a power struggle because, if there is no objective, then might makes right. [br] If you wish to take that position, the position of relativism, go for it, but be consistent in your argumentation. If there truly are no objectives, then your opinion--and without objectives an opinion is all it can ever be--is pretty empty. You say something is true, such as homosexuality is okay, but if you are to remain consistent in your relativism, then homosexuality is only okay for you. If I believe it's bad, then it's bad for me. But what if I believe it's bad for you too? Well, you can say that no one can tell you what is good or bad, that it is all up to you, but is that claim relative as well, or is that an absolute? [br] If that is an absolute, doesn't the existence of that absolute--that impressing your beliefs upon others is wrong--point to some sort of objective universal? If that absolute exists, why not others? What evidence do you have that that is the only one, and why should we all recognize and obey that? [br] If that is not an absolute, if the idea that no one else can decide what is right or wrong for you is also relative to each individual, then our further conversation is pretty empty. I will go on believing that homosexuality is wrong for you, though you believe it is right for you. If you get angry with me for continuing my belief, then even though by the definition of relativism I can believe whatever I want and that becomes true for me, you could do something extreme and come kill me to shut me up. After all, there are no moral objectives. What if you decide that killing me is good for you? Then, as a consistent relativist, there is no reason not to kill me. [br] If even after looking through this you still find yourself to be a relativist, I apologize but I do not see further conversation / debate / discussion between you and any of us as being in any way shape or form positive. Regardless of what I say, you will believe that it is only my personal truth, and you the relativist will claim that your own personal truth remains true for you. [br] (Of course, the relativist treats relativism itself as a moral objective absolute, so their position can never be fully consistent. When asked if they are sure that relativism is true, they would have to respond "no." And if they are not sure that this position has any grounds, and indeed it cannot have any grounds without being an objective absolute, whose reality it itself refutes, then they really have no legitimate reason for continuing to speak). [br] And as for Biblical interpretation, though all of it is religiously true (though not all is historically true), not all of it applies to us. The regulations that don't apply to us include: [br] 1. The ceremonial regulations, for example, how the priest must dress. [br] 2. The dietary regulations, for example, the prohibition on eating pork. [br] 3. The regulations for ritual purity, for example, the special rules for women during their menstrual periods. [br] 4. The sacrificial regulations, for example, when to sacrifice a lamb and when to sacrifice a goat. [br] 5. The civil regulations, which establish penalties: telling how particular misdeeds are to be punished. [br] Notice that the moral regulations are fully binding on all of us now. Though Jennifer's verse would not demand that we kill homosexuals (that is a civil regulation, and it is one that I would be willing to argue is idiotically unjust, but we cannot judge Old Testament people by New Testament standards--that's not to say God can't, but we can't know that and should leave it to him), her verse would have authority over us in a moral sense, informing us of the wrongs of homosexuality. [br] I hope that helped. [br] C: Actually, in a society where gay marriage is becoming an advocated cause, we DO have the right to protest and stand up for what we believe in. [br] [br] [br] END NOTE [br] [br] So if any of you guys enjoyed that little debate (which went on for exactly one month after it was written), feel free to make some comments! [br] [br] Also, don't be afraid to stand up to your friends. Every single person who commented on my blog on facebook was a friend.
VIEW FULL VERSION: Link