Seton Hall University, a Roman Catholic institution in New Jersey, is debating whether to cancel a course on gay marriage after the archbishop of Newark, John J. Myers, said it would conflict with church teachings, The Star-Ledger reported. The archbishop serves as chairman of Seton Hall’s Board of Trustees and is president of its Board of Regents, the governing body that oversees academic issues. W. King Mott, the associate professor of political science who was scheduled to teach the class next fall, told the campus newspaper, The Setonian, that the course “is not about advocacy, but about studying the issue from an academic perspective.” Mr. Mott is a former associate dean of the university’s College of Arts and Sciences who was demoted in 2005 after he wrote a letter to the newspaper criticizing church views on homosexuality.
- 1255 Twenty-Third St, N.W.
- Washington, D.C. 20037
- Copyright © 2013 The Chronicle of Higher Education
Anyone who does not understand the difference between “discuss” and “advocate” has no business chairing the trustees of an institution of higher learning, I don’t care HOW many robes he gets to wear in his day job.
If Seton Hall was a “real” open academic institution, committed to a full and free discourse on any and every subject a student may confront in todays society – then the leadership of the University must immediately inform the archbishop to go to hell. He has as much right to tell the University president what he can allow to be taught as he has to tell the president of the United States what policy he can institute. If, however, Seton Hall is a mentally closed institution, fettered by a hierarchictally imposed indoctrination of students towards a narrowly conceived religious point of view, than it will follow the bishop’s strong arm control and render itself useless to the educational enterprise. There is no open expression ideas within the catholic church, only law suits for years and years of abuse of its flock. Seton Hall – Don’t allow your students (your flock) to be abused by the denial of open thought by this archbishop. It’s time to stand up and strongly assert the fact that Seton Hall is a true University for all of the people who seek an open expression and discussion of all the the compelling ideas of our time.
I am an alumnus of Seton Hall, and I am very disappointed in the archbishop’s position, which diminishes the academic credibility of a great institution. If this course does not stay, there should be a serious consideration of a no-confidence vote on the top leadership.
Why do folks have such a problem with a Catholic institution being Catholic? It’s part of the job they are supposed to be doing which has sadly changed.
The problem that I have is that SHU is a university, and we are talking about a course. Gay marriage is a contemporary issue in the United States, and I bet that there are ways to analyze it from a multidisciplinary perspective. Is that too much to ask from a place of higher learning?
Several Questions:1. Is the Newark Archbishop automatically Chairman and President? 2. Has this course been taught?3. Has the Archbishop read the syllabus? Looked at the readings?4. At STU, what procedure must be followed for an idea to become a course?5. Perhaps a course entitled “The Origins and History of Pedophilia” would not “conflict” with the practices of the church.
To those of you using the Bible as a weapon against homosexuality, you are wrong. Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.http://www.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htmhttp://www.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.htmlhttp://www.christchapel.com/reclaiming.htmlhttp://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.phphttp://www.gaychristian101.com/ Thats why Jesus never mentions it as well. There is nothing immoral, wrong, or sinful about being gay. Jesus, however, clearly states he HATES hypocrites. If you preach goodness, then promote hate and twist the words of the Bible, you are a hypocrite, and will be judged and sent to hell. Homosexuals will not go to hell, hypocrites will. This is very similar to the religious bigots of the past, where they took Bible passages to condone slavery, keep women down, and used Bible passages to claim blacks as curses who should be enslaved by the white man. People used God to claim that blacks marrying whites was unnatural, and not of God’s will.
For those of you claiming homosexuality is a “lifestyle”, that is a false and ignorant statement. Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don’t choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological. http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdfhttp://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.htmlGay, Straight Men’s Brain Responses Differhttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.htmlhttp://www.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.htmlhttp://www.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/16/172/There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. “Nurture” may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.And it should also be noted that:”It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person’s sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association.”
The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Asociation and American Psychiatric Asociation have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.America’s premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality
This was taken from another poster that shows why we need to legalize gay marriage. If you don’t feel for this person after reading it, you simply aren’t human.”I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if “Gays” have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funeral. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate “(Legal Document)” of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. “
The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers state:”There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage.”http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdfThus, mental health professionals and researchers have long recognized that being homosexual poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life, and that the vast majority of gay and lesbian people function well in the full array of social institutions and interpersonal relationships.http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdfThe research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality.http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdfThe longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation.http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx
Homosexual unions violate the rights of 2 groups of people [as inferred from the Catechism of the Catholic Church]:1) Spouses have the right to become parents exclusively through each other.2) Children have the right to be born and raised by their biological, married parents.Homosexual unions violate these rights, de facto.
Religions tend to declare abominations for purely pragmatic reasons. Say you have a nation which loses many men in war and has a high infant mortality rate. What, then, becomes a priority? A high birth rate. Can that be achieved through homosexuality? This pragmatism is seen in other examples: stone a rebelious son, Catholic priestly celebacy, honor thy father and mother. All clothed in religious doctrine.
shadow_man, a gay couple can go to an attorney and draft a set of documents that gives the couple control in such instances as death. A DPA for health care should be in place, as should a well executed will. Having instructions left with the bank by the individuals involved will also help if accounts are kept separately. I am very sorry for the loss of the man in the quote.
jruiz,Religions also oppose murder and stealing. Do they do so for solely “pragmatic reasons”? There is no reason why teachings cannot emanate from moral philosophical reasoning and also have practical benefits – in fact, we should expect this to be the case. Conversely, one might turn your point around by asking whether your apparent opposition to Catholic moral teaching on homosexuality is emanating from your own personal pragmatism.
I see this ias just a simple matter of truth in advertising. When parents pay for Catholic teaching, they expect and deserve Catholic teaching. If you don’t like Catholic teaching, then you shouldn’t send your kid to a Catholic college. I don’t think that’s hard to understand or accept, really.I believe the bishop is right to be very concerned. There’s nothing wrong with presenting opposing views – that’s actually a good thing – and I don’t believe for a minute that the bishop objects to that. But, like me, I suspect that he’s seen what passes for “discussion” and “dialogue” at Catholic educational institutions these days. It seems clear that based on the description o fthe course and other factors, that the bishop is not comfortable that this course will be trustworthy for Catholic students.For some time, “discussion” and “dialogue” have become guises under which to *advocate* for erroneous, non-Catholic beliefs. I know this from personal experience. It’s unethical to use the “Catholic” name to acquire students and authority only to then illegitimately use that authority to teach young minds something else entirely. Such professors should be candid enough to admit they’re not Catholic and go teach at a secular school or start their own school where they can teach their own personal beliefs.
Shadowman,Some people come to God’s Word and try to conform themselves to it. Others try to conform God’s Word to themselves.http://www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asphttp://www.catholic.com/libraryhttp://www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/homosexualityYou also seem unaware of the data on studies about sexual orientation – it does not seem to be etched in stone, it is fluid. You also appear to be wrong by saying sexual orientation is simply “biological.” Studies done by respected scientists (both homosexual and hetero) have indicated that there are *both* biological and environmental factors (experience, upbringing, etc.) that play into a homosexual orientation. Differences in brains between hetero and homosexuals do not establish causation – you’re begging the chicken and egg question here.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation#Fluidity_of_sexualityhttp://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/SexualOrientation.pdfhttp://www.narth.com/docs/journalsummary.html
Princeton67,Why resort to a cheap shot about pedophilia? It’s irrelevant to the issue. But you should read more on the topic of pedophilia and society at large. When even liberal Jewish attorneys like Alan Dershowitz are defending the Church and the Pope, I think that’s a pretty sure sign that the attacks have gotten out of hand.http://www.catholicleague.org/research/abuse_in_social_context.htmhttp://frontpagemag.com/2010/04/13/in-defense-of-the-pope/ http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/5/01552.shtmlhttp://www.zenit.org/article-3922?l=english
Shadowman,I don’t agree that the evidence supports homosexuality as healthy for the individual or society. There are many health issues, mentally, physically, and psychologically that are linked to homosexuality. According to The Gay Report (issued by pro-homosexual researchers), 35% of homosexuals reported having had gonorrhea at least once and 69% reported having crabs (Jay/Young 691-692) Jay and Young made it clear that STDs are a huge threat, especially to gay men. According to them, “In the early years of the gay movement, some activists objected to the idea that venereal disease is more prevalent among male homosexuals. Presumably, the VD ‘accusation’ was being used as a weapon against gay people. However, gay men cannot afford to worry about their ‘reputation’ when in fact people are transmitting diseases through sexual contact at a rapid rate”(Jay/Young). In fact, The Center for Disease Control and Protection (CDC) states that in 2002, 54 percent of all AIDS cases in America were found in homosexuals and 90 percent of them got their HIV by having sex with other men (Brinkman).Additionally, studies have shown that the life expectancy of homosexuals is less than that of heterosexuals by anywhere from eight to twenty years (International Journal of Epidemiology). Many homosexual relationships, far more than heterosexual relationships, were also either physically or emotionally abusive. The American Journal of Public Health did a study that shows 39 percent of homosexual men have been abused by other homosexuals. A study in the The Journal of Family Violence also stated that: “abuse and violence in homosexual relationships was a serious problem with 13 percent of homosexuals in the report saying they were physically abused and 83 percent saying they were emotionally abused. Levels of abuse were even a little worse with lesbians in the study: 55 percent said they gone through physical abuse and 84 percent saying they suffered emotional abuse” (Brinkman). Next to consider are the emotional and psychological disadvantages many homosexuals suffer. The rates of suicide, suicide attempts, contemplation of suicide, and depression are drastically higher than those of heterosexuals. According to psychiatrist Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, director of the Institute for Marital Healing:”There is a strong link between homosexual sex and suicide, as well as a relationship between homosexuality and emotional and mental problems. The youth suffering from these disorders were four times as likely as their peers to suffer from major depression, almost three times as likely to suffer from generalized anxiety disorder, nearly four times as likely to experience conduct disorder, five times as likely to have nicotine dependence, six times as likely to suffer from multiple disorders, and over six times as likely to have attempted suicide” (Medical Downside of Homosexual Behavior)Dr. Fitzgibbons disagrees with claims made by homosexual supporters that these psychiatric problems are only present because homosexual are not accepted in society. He points to studies done in the Netherlands (where homosexuality has been accepted in the law and society for years) that show consistent rates of psychiatric disorders with homosexuals. Another study, the Gay Report (1979), states that 35% of those surveyed had 100 or more sexual partners in their lives; 18% had between seven and 60 sexual partners in a single month and 18% had three or more in the last week. 38% said the longest relationship they had ever had was less than a year. For lesbians, the average relationship was about 38 months long (Jay/Young 248-302 340).There’s more as well.
Pride and arrogance will cause many to miss out on Heaven. No one has a RIGHT to think,say or do anything that is displeasing to Our Lord.You have the ABILITY to do wrong, but, not the RIGHT to do it. If any sin could actually make God vomit…it would be sodomy.Whenever Good compromises with Evil….Evil wins. Be careful which side you choose…as our Blessed Mother has told us….in the end, her Immaculate Heart will triumph. SSS
mikewf makes some excellent points. What strikes me in this is that we’re talking about a private, “Catholic” institution, where a faculty member is offering a class that is in direct opposition to Christian teaching. It’s really immaterial whether it’s an “academic” discussion, but let’s be real about this: this course is being taught by a professor who identifies himself as “gay” and who has publicly opposed the Church on this issue, so one wonders how objective the presentation would be and how the Church’s perennial teaching would be presented.But back to the Catholic institution aspect of the issue. Given the school’s Catholic affiliation, doesn’t the archbishop have not only the right but also the duty to speak up?Here’s a politically incorrect analogy: Imagine the NAACP opening a private college to promote African American Studies. Somehow a white supremacist professor is able to get a job there. One day he decides to offer an elective on race relations. While the NAACP’s position would be acknowledged, the professor’s approach would naturally put his own extreme views in a more favorable light. Wouldn’t such a class defeat the purpose of having a NAACP-run college? Wouldn’t NAACP leadership have the right to take corrective action to ensure that its mission is promoted? And why should the NAACP give any quarter to criticism from white supremacy groups that have nothing to do with the college or the NAACP, but merely want to use the controversy to advance their own agendas?
Seton Hall is the oldest DIOCESAN University in the country and is under the Archdiocese of Newark. Therefore it is under the Catholic teaching of the archbishop. The university, itself, publically self-identifies as a Catholic institution and states, “A university is Catholic in many ways: …living Catholic values.” The university is obligated to uphold Catholic teaching by its own declaration while the archbishop is doing his job the primary teacher and sanctifier for his see.Even if it wasn’t a diocesan establishment, as a Catholic institution it requires a “professio fidei” under canon 833 of the current Canon Law. In the revised code of 1983 a “professio fidei” was extended to theologians and others who teach in faith and ethics “in any [Catholic] universities whatsoever.”A “same-sex marriage course” at a Catholic college is not a bad thing in itself. However, if such a course is to be taught, it should be solely from the spiritual teaching of the Church. If it were truly from an “academic perspective” or some people believe Seton Hall should adhere to their personal interpretation of a “‘real’ open academic institution,” then the expectation should also be for a “‘real’ open academic” lecturer. The class professor, W. King Mott, is an openly homosexual man in a same-sex relationship; he called the Catholic Church “prima facie homophobic” and has publically stated Church teaching on marriage being between one man and one woman as “laughable.” This is hardly an “open academic” situation. Sounds rather biased to me.It’s easy for modernist academics to put a chosen spin despite 2000 years of previous teaching descended from others much closer to the time. But let’s not also forget that there was no word or concept to fully convey our current understanding of what has we now call “homosexual.”There are a lot of things Jesus never mentioned! (He DID refer to the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, though.) You would have to disregard then entire New Testament save for the four Gospels if you cherry-pick to only believe something because “Jesus said it.”
Suggest people check-out Robert Gagnon’s website. He has some of the refutations to pro-homosexual religious arguments.
I suggest inviting Mr. Gagnon to speak at Seton Hall in opposition the the pro-gay professor.
Good suggestions re Gagnon. He writes from a Protestant perspective (I think this subject lends itself well to ecumenical collaboration), but I’ve heard him speak at a Catholic college and he was outstanding. His book “The Bible and Homosexual Practice” convincingly rebuts the tired assertion that the Bible doesn’t consider homosexual behavior a serious sin.
The title of the class, in and of itself, lends credence to, promates, and prepetuates the homosexual lifestyle. If truly it were “not about advocacy, but about studying the issue from an academic perspective.” Then Professor Mott could teach the same material only under the course title of “A study of deviant lifestyle partnerships” instead of a course on “Gay Marriage.” However, that wouldn’t happen, because it is about advocacy.
thank God.
Firstly, like it or not, homosexuality is indeed a sin. If such a practicehas moved so far from the reach of one’s own conscience, that the party in question has no intention of exercising the restraint that every other sinner must daily commit themselves toward, then the only rational suggestion is that the party should remove themselves from the pratice of the Christian faith, This should not be shock to consider, because in honesty that person has been a defacto practitioner of another faith entirely once the sin (the act, not the person, that is pernicious) has been lifted from the darkness and shame where Christians loving and obedient to God relegate all of their missteps, concupiscience and tresspasses, to a grand, open stage. You and I were born in an unparalleled era where this sin,like all others, a reproach to God and all that is good is CELEBRATED. I do not envy you. But I pray that God’s mercy finds us all.Second, refer to first paragraph : the folks who desire this debate (advocacy? or not) should a) respect and follow the decision of the archbishop or b) leave the Catholic University and take their show on the road. There are a great many other “schools” which would embrace this stuff.
ellenhunt: The thing is, he did, and many others. But they are denied that right because their marriage is not considered valid or simply because they cannot get married. That is why we need to legalize gay marriage.
mikewf: You are taking information out of context. First, lets address the STD/AIDS studies. Majority of the world’s AIDS is among heterosexuals in Africa.More on the origins of AIDS/HIV in Africahttp://www.avert.org/origins.htmhttp://www.rebirth.co.za/AIDS_in_Africa_1.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDSmajority of AIDS in africahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Africa “Many deaths are people who are their family’s primary wage earners.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_South_Africa heterosexual disease in africahttp://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03E0DE153BF931A15752C0A963948260&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=1 http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/threat.htm http://www.fumento.com/disease/aids2005.html http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1394113/posts60% pregnant woman have aids africahttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2082311.stm “By 1999 the HIV prevalence rate among pregnant women was 22.4%.”"hiv among pregnant women”http://www.avert.org/safricastats.htm http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:66vbiSw48xAJ:data.unaids.org/pub/EPISlides/2007/071118_epi_regional%2520factsheet_en.pdf+UNAIDS+fact+sheet+aids&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=ushttp://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/resources/factsheets/aa.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDShttp://www.avert.org/aafrica.htm Around 2 million children in sub-Saharan Africa were living with HIV at the end of 2007. They represent more than 85% of all children living with HIW worldwide. AIDS among children is transferred by mothers.Helping women and girls in many parts of Africa, as elsewhere in the world, the AIDS epidemic is aggravated by social and economic inequalitities between men and women.heterosexual contact http://aids.about.com/cs/aidsfactsheets/a/africa.htm 70% aids comes from heterosexualshttp://hem.passagen.se/nicb/threat.htm In fact, AIDS originated in Africa.
test
mikewf: You also state that homosexuals tend to have higher mental health problems and lower life expentancies. But you conveniently left out why.Why are homosexuals more likely to suffer from mental health issues than their heterosexual counterparts? Is it because they are homosexual or is it because of negative attitudes that are reflected upon it? Well, a recent study found this: “Researchers at the University of Minnesota have published a study showing that the degree of internalized homonegativity (negative attitude towards homosexuality) among homosexual men is what predicts poor mental and sexual health not the act of being homosexual.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080917145418.htmImagine going through life being told on a regular basis that you are going to burn in hell, that you should be locked away, that you’re sick, evil, immoral, that you should change who you are to ease the hate of those around you, that you should die? What is telling is not that we’re more likely to be depressed or suicidal but that not all of us are. It takes a hell of a lot of strength and courage to be openly and honestly homosexual even in this so-called “liberal” world and not let the ugliness get to us.The reason that there are higher rates of other mental health concerns for people who are Lesbian and Gay is having to grow up and live surrounded by people such as yourself. Two recent studies have shown that there are increased rates of depression, alcohol and drug abuse, and so on, among those who have a negative view of their sexual orientation, internalized homophobia and young people who experience family rejection and negativity toward their sexual orientation are also far more likely to suffer the same problems and also to engage in risky sexual behaviorshttp://gaynewsbits.com/2008/09/17/study-on-internalized-homophobia-and-health/http://news.aol.com/health/story/_a/study-family-behavior-key-to-health-of/n20081229000209990013More likely to suffer mental health issues from bigotry and rejectionhttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/12/30/familial-rejection-of-gay-teens-can-lead-to-mental-health-problems-later/
mikewf: Also, STD’s in general are highest among straights.STD’s high among straightshttp://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/Abstract/2009/04000/Anal_Intercourse_Among_Young_Heterosexuals_in.1.aspxhttp://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/syphilis.htmhttp://health.state.mn.us/divs/idepc/dtopics/stds/stats/stdreport2006.pdf
mikewf: Finally, the main reason why your arguments don’t work, is because they are isolated incidents. You cannot demonize a whole group because several people within that group have things you consider “bad” Most AIDS cases are among black people. By your logic, we should demonize them and deny them marriage because they are a threat. See why that logic fails? Unless you can prove that every single member of said group has said problem, it doesn’t demonize the whole group.
kaeen341: Robert Gagnon is an evangelical. Most of his information twists lines out of context and makes many assumptions. For example, he points to a lot of passages about heterosexual marriages, and then makes the assumption that since they are talking about heterosexual marriages, homosexual marriages are condemned. That is simply not true. That alone makes you ponder the validity of his work, well that and besides the fact that he is one of the well most known anti-gay evangelicals.
mikekrebs57: I suggest you read these links that prove that homosexuality is not a sin.http://www.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htmhttp://www.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.htmlhttp://www.christchapel.com/reclaiming.htmlhttp://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.phphttp://www.gaychristian101.com/As an example, let’s examine Leviticus.Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination.” Leviticus 20:13: “If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death.” Both of these verses refer to heterosexuals who participated in fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks, not homosexuals, there is absolutely no mention of sexual orientation or homosexuality. Also, the word abomination was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or dealing with any type idol worship.The Hebrew word “toevah” was used in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. “Toevah” has been translated in our Bibles as “abomination” or “detestable”. The “toevah” was used throughout the Old Testament for activity involving ethnic contamination and religious idolatry. “Toevah” refers to things that were ritually unclean – like eating pork. It is significant that another Hebrew word, “zimah,” also translated “abomination,” which means intrinsic evil or evil by its very nature, was not used in Leviticus 18:22, or Leviticus 20:13.It is also significant that female homosexual relationships are not mentioned in the old testament. That’s because they aren’t talking about sexual orientation, they are talking about idolatrous practices.
henhen: So i’m assuming you are against all adoption then?
mikewf: That Catholic site you pointed out has a lot of misinformation. On their “Reinterpreting Scripture” section, you notice there’s only 2 paragraphs that do not address most of the points in my links. In fact, they don’t even explain much, they just simply pull more lines out of context and say it’s God’s words. They are ignoring the historical times as well as other biblical passages. Then we scroll down to their “I Was Born This Way” section, and we see them laughably trying to associate sexual orientation with alcoholism. They don’t provide any evidence, whereas science/medical/psychological fields have already debunked that.http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdfhttp://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.htmlGay, Straight Men’s Brain Responses Differhttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.htmlhttp://www.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.htmlhttp://www.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/16/172/That misinformation alone discredits that site, as well as the fact they merely pull lines out of context as i explained above.
mikewf: I saved this one for last because this completely destroys all your credibility and information you posted.You cited this site:http://www.narth.com/docs/journalsummary.htmlLOL.I laugh whenever someone references NARTH. NARTH is a well known anti-gay and discredited organization, with people in it who were known to conduct research fraud and unethical practices. NARTH is an unreliable source that’s been debunked. It was even omitted in the prop 8 trial where the participants on the anti-gay side even admitted narth is not a credible organization.Narth references paul cameron (see above for info on this anti-gay) who was kicked out of the APA for unethical practices and tries to tie in pedophilia with homosexuality, a position not supported by any valid psychological, medical, and scientific organization anywhere.http://www.narth.com/docs/olson.htmlhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/category/activists-anti-gay/paul-cameronExposing more NARTH junk sciencehttp://blog.ejsssb.org/category/narth/10 Key Facts Everyone Should Know About NARTHhttp://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2009/11/4813/NARTH has also repeatedly tried to distort real scientific research, and took the APA statements out of context.NARTH official blasted for misquotes and distorting researchhttp://www.nowpublic.com/culture/narth-official-blasted-misquoteshttp://current.com/11mk64chttp://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/homosexuality/http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/antigay-activists-falsely-report-apa-change-of-view-regarding-gay-gene/Look at all that. The fact that NARTH lies, takes other data out of context, heavily discredits this organization. Even most anti-gay people will admit that. Sorry, but come back to me when you have actual credible information, or information where you don’t conveniently leave out the important parts :)
shadow man, somehow being an Evangelical disqualifies Gagnon? I don’t think so. I suggest people go to his website and his books and you will see the rebuttals to many of the points you bring up.If his interpretation on homosexuality are wrong then why do early Church fathers and and Jewish philosophers and historians’ clear pronouncements from 2 thousand years ago make it also clear that homosexuality is immoral? Are they misinterpreting scripture too even though they are 2000 years closer in language and culture than today’s pro-homosexualists?
Shadow man, you seem to think because homosexuality many have a biological component it is OK with God. I see no reason to believe this. It is a consequence of Original Sin. Death is now natural but was never part of God’s created intent it is a consequence of man’s fall as is all disorders and disease. This coupled with nothing in Scripture that says homosexuality is ever a good thing does not convince me that simply having a biological component makes it what God wanted.
Shadow man, you say no mention of lesbianism supports your view that Leviticus is not about homosexuality. I disagree. God’s relationship with woman is where the man cleave’s to his wife (see Genesis). Only men can cleave (to women and other men), not between women – at least not in Jewish thinking. This penetration requirement is mentioned in Rabinical commentary of old. It is cited by Gagnon. Also, the Jews were sticklers when it came to obeying the technicalities of the law. Women, technically, could not go against Leviticus. However, with the new testament even a lustful heart is considered adultery so the penetration requirement goes away. Jesus rasies the status of women and along with this comes greater responsibility. Lesbianism is condemned in the new testament.
Shadow man, Gagnon lists numerous pro-gay biblical scholars who also agree with Gagnon that the biblical words used do indeed say homosexuality is immoral. I suggest you read what these biblical scholars have to say. See Gagnon for the pro-gay biblical scholars. Are their interpretations wrong also, along with the constant 2000 year teaching of the Church, the extra-biblical writings of ancient Jewish writers and Church fathers? I think it is modern day pro-gay people who are making assumptions and speculating on meaning.
shadow man, concerning the word abmonination, what you fail to mention is that abmoniation is also, many times, used to refer to clearly moral issues like not helping the poor and many other things (look them up in the bible and see Gagnon’s examples.. So the word did have a clear moral meaning.Why did you not mention this?
shadowman, you seem to think that Jesus not specifically mentioning homosexuality somehow indicates it was OK with Jesus. Jesus did not specifically mention incest or sex with animals either (levitical laws also). Are we to assume these were OK with Jesus? More likely, unlike adultery and divorce, these and homosexuality were not 1st century Jewish internal disagrements – eveyone believed they were always wrong. Also, some biblical scholars believe the Greek word porneia (spelling) was a Jewish short hand way of refering to the levitical sexual laws. Jesus did you this term – so perhaps he did condemn homosexuality along with incest and sex with animals in one fell swoop.
Shadow man, Leviticus has all kinds of rules on heterosexual incest, yet say nothing of homosexual incest. Why not? Perhaps it already covered under Leviticus which considers all homosexual acts as wrong.
SHADOW MAN, In at least one of your referenced sites (StJohn one I believe) It says that the meaning of arsenokoites can’t be determined and that it is not found in most of Greek Literature.That is because it may be a word of Jewish coinage from the Septuagint translation of Leviticus concerning homosexuality. In the septuagint it is arsen koites in Leviticus. Paul may have combined the words to form the new word found in 1 Cor and 1Tim -arsenokoites. The New Testament makes much use of the Septuagint in its translations. He may have used this word and not others in Greek to link it back to Jewish Levitical law to show his new testament teaching still applied Jewish understanding of moral law. Indeed, it use in 1 Tim and linkage to the Law supports this interpretation. He may not have used other greek words because they would not convey this linkage. Under Leviticus homosexual acts were always immoral. ‘A man who lies with a male as with a woman’ is a very general usage.I see nothing in the passage that limits it. Given that abomination can have moral meanings as well as ritual I do not see how you can assert that it does not carry a general meaning in Leviticus. Even gaychristian101 has the ‘no context’ meaning of arsenokoitai used many more times than the ‘with context’. This indicates to me that no context was needed becasue the words spoke for themselves and the greater number of usages without context makes sense if refering to homosexuality generally. Sorry I don’t find your abomination argument convincing at all.
shadow man, there were very early translations of 1 Cor and 1 Tim into Latin, Syriac, and Coptic. You would think the words in these other languages were be more specific that arsenokoites did not mean general homosexuality. But they don’t. These translations also translate the word very generally. Of course, prostituion, pederasty would also be covered by arsenokotai but just because someone uses the word to described homosexual prostitution does not prove it does not mean general homosexuality. It merely shows a particular, appropriate application of the word.
“Religions also oppose murder and stealing.”I believe God himself not only condoned but mandated the death of whole cities which would nor surrender to the Israelites (with the exception of young virgins). Similarly, stealing was approved both by Jesus and the Jweish sages under certain circumstances.
Shadowman, I think you’ve already been answered more than sufficiently. But no one is “demonizing” anyone – certainly not me. The problem is not the who homosexuals are inherently, it’s what they typically do. That’s why your comparison to blacks is false. Anal sex is dangerous no matter who engages in it – whether Africans who use it to avoid pregnancy (and where rape, homosexuality, and bisexuality are also unfortunately all too common). It just so happens that homosexuals do not have the option of natural, pro-creative sex. It’s an inherent impossibility. And that’s why they have seriously disproportionate problems with sexually transmitted diseases like AIDS.Promiscuity is rampant in the homosexual community, particularly the male homosexual community. Until it was changed under political pressure – not scientific pressure – it was categorized as a mental disorder by the APA. The expected lifespan of a sexually active homosexual is expected to be up to 20 years less than a heterosexual. And guess what? We see very similar figures in “gay friendly” countries (in relation to depression, suicide, etc) – as we do in the United States. So your speculation about depression etc. being do to lack of acceptance has no good basis in fact. You can wish these facts away all you wish and live that dangerous lifestyle if you wish – but don’t think that you can deceive the rest of us and mislead people into dangerous errors without being corrected. Misery loves company, I know, but I would prefer that fewer people make that journey or turn away from it. If anyone can look at the simple plumbing of male and female and not realize that male does not go with male and female does not go with female sexually, then that such an individual is either deeply confused or willfully blind.You can pretend all you like that homosexual sex is normal and just fine, without any health consequences attached to it – but nature and reality are not mocked, they cannot be fooled.I’ll pray for you – and I mean that sincerely. We’re all sinners, fallen human beings. It’s just that some of us would rather say that evil is good in order to justify our sin. It’s far worse when such people then try to spread their dangerous errors to others.May God bless you.
jruiz,I don’t follow your point. In your first post, you wrote, “Religions tend to declare abominations for purely pragmatic reasons.”I rebutted that by noting that:”Religions also oppose murder and stealing. Do they do so for solely “pragmatic reasons”? There is no reason why teachings cannot emanate from moral philosophical reasoning and also have practical benefits – in fact, we should expect this to be the case. Conversely, one might turn your point around by asking whether your apparent opposition to Catholic moral teaching on homosexuality is emanating from your own personal pragmatism.”Regardless, you’d have to show me where Jesus condoned stealing. That’s new to me.
kaeen341: Nope, if you read my entire post, you will see why Gagnon is very non-credible. I will provide you more incite on why he is not credible.As one of the resources, this site references Robert Gagnon, prolific anti-gay, evangelical Christian author.Most of his information is either out of context, or he makes assumptions. For example, he points out a lot of passages on heterosexual marriages mentioned in the Bible, and assumes that since they talk about heterosexual marriages, all homosexual marriages are condemned. That is not only an assumption, but a wrong one at that, since the Bible never specifically condemns homosexual marriages. That alone makes you ponder the validity of his book.One of his arguments on gay marriage that proves this:http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles4/GagnonGayMarriage1.phpIn this article, he states a lot of things without providing any evidence and things that clearly show his anti-gay stance. He tries to associate it with irrelevant things, such as incest and polygamy, and claims gay marriage “a contradiction of terms”He then tries to cite scripture and pulls out verses that talk about heterosexual relationships and marriages. Again, none of those verses condemn homosexual relationships and he is making another blind assumption. Then scrolling down, he calls homosexual desire “sexual narcissism or sexual self-deception” and makes statements that are clearly not supported by any valid psychological, medical, or scientific organization. This proves that he is not only highly anti-gay, but a lot of his information lacks evidence, makes assumptions, and is contrary to actual science/psychology. That immediately should send red light signals on his interpretations of the Bible in his book.
kaeen341: As for your second post, if it’s biological if i’ve proven, then that means God made you that way. Lol, are you saying God intentionally made you sinful? The thing is, even if you reference the Bible, i’ve proven that homosexuality is not a sin. You can rebut my links and posts if you want, and address those specific points.
kaeen341: My links and even Gagnon’s book himself acknowledge the fact that abomination deals mostly with idolatry in the Old Testament. “I do not doubt that the circles out of which Lev 18:22 was produced had in view homosexual cult prostitution, at least partly. Homosexual cult prostitution appears to have been the primary form in which homosexual intercourse was practiced in Israel.” – Gagnon, p. 130Even Gagnon himself acknowledges what other experts have been saying. Although he goes on to twist scripture as we’ve pointed out to condone his anti-gay stance.
kaeen341: Because a lot of things change in 2000 years. Unless of course, you still believe that the world is flat, slavery is moral, and women should remain in their place subservient to women.
kaeen341: The point is, if homosexuality was as sinful as you claim it was, Jesus would have condemned it, and Jesus would never have healed the gay centurion. The fact that homosexuality itself is never condemned in the Bible as i’ve proven, it’s a pretty safe bet to assume why Jesus also didn’t condemn it.
kaeen341: Because heterosexual incest is irrelevant to homosexuality. What you try to do here is bring irrelevant variables, because your argument towards homosexuality falters. One of the key things is that during those historical times, homosexual sex was used widely to worship statues or other Gods, aka idolatry. Not heterosexual incest. When you combine the historical times, the acknowledgement many times of religious idolatry, and piece it all together, it is clear that homosexual sex between two loving consenting adults was never condemned. What was condemned was homosexual sex used to worship idols. I don’t think there’s any homosexual worshipping idols nowadays.
Shadowman,Some people come to God’s Word and try to conform themselves to it. Others try to conform God’s Word to themselves.http://www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asphttp://www.catholic.com/libraryhttp://www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/homosexualityYou are firmly in the latter camp.
kaeen341: I’ll clarify that interpretation for you. It is the interpretation of Corinthians, where we see that word used. I will also show you why the anti-gay version of Corinthians is pretty laughable.I Corinthians 6:9-11Let us examine that very closely.Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoites], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.First of all, before we address this line, let us consider one thing. Supposedly taken from a 2000+ year old book, understand that the word “homosexual” was not coined until 1869 by Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny. So how it happens to be included in a true reading of the particular biblical passage should make you ponder how accurate the interpretation actually is. So man changing the words of the Bible to conveniently spread hate? I think so.Now onto the interpretation, i’ve included the original Greek words as well where it’s relevant.Paul was attempting to educate the new Christians in Corinth as to what Godly living was all about. In verses 9-10, he listed ways of living that were not compatible with a Christ-centered life. In verse 11, Paul reminded them that they had been saved out of those destructive ways. There are two Greek words in I Corinthians 6:9, which sometimes are translated with a homosexual connotation. First word, “malakoi” or “malakos” – it literally means soft or mushy; it can mean spineless, wishy-washy or without backbone. “Malakoi” was used four other times in the New Testament and it always meant “soft.” The context of I Corinthians seems to imply a moral softness or decadence, a failure to stand up for what is right and godly. It is significant that for several hundred years there was no sexual connotation assigned to this word. Second word, “arsenokoitai” or “arsenokoites” – it literally means, “males having sex.” Early commentaries on I Corinthians related “arsenokoitai” to male temple prostitutes and to men having sex with boys. (Idolatrous prostitution and pedophilia are always wrong for those seeking to honor God.) Homosexual relationships were known in the Greco-Roman culture of Paul’s day. The Greek word commonly used in reference to adult male same sex partners was “arrenokoites.” Paul did not use this word. Instead, he created his own, “arsenokoitai.” If Paul had intended to condemn all adult male same sex partners, he would have used the common word for it.
kaeen341: It is not just the definition of the word that proves that interpretation, but the historical times and examination of the entire Bible and it’s passages that further confirm it. It would help if you knew what the culture was like back then. In those times, male-male intercourse was a result of idol worship. Back then, it was a common practice of cult priests and priestesses to submit to sexual acts with either gender as part of the worship of their deities. Therefore, such acts were considered sinful and debauchery. It would be the same if it were hetero people involved in cultic sex, prostitution or sexual abuse of minors.Now I’m pretty sure that two guys engaging in sex these days are NOT idol worshipers. In fact, 99% of the time, it is a physical act of love; just like any hetero couples.Also, every instance where “homosexual sex” is condemned, we see it affiliated with idolatry, prostitition, rape, among other actual sexual sins. The evidence supporting that notion is overwhelming. Combine that with the fact there theres much biological proof that we are born that way, and sexual orientation is not changeable, means that God made us that way for his purposes. The proof that homosexuality is not a sin is overwhelming.
kaeen341: Onto your final post, Timothy 1:8-10Paul lists types of people who need to hear the law. His list includes “arsenokoitai.” Again, it is significant that Paul did not use the Greek word “arrenokoites” which would have easily been understood to condemn all adult male same sex partners, had that been his intent. Evidently, it was not his intent.
These are interesting, a man with same-sex attractions who left the gay lifestyle. I know you won’t like his Biblical interpretation, but still interesting.http://www.bible.ca/s-homo=sin.htmWhat does the Bible say about homosexuality?http://www.carm.org/homosexualityTo paraphrase St. Paul in Romans 1 – Sin, especially that which is embraced, darkens the mind and the moral sense. And God will let you go down that path and allow your senses to be darkened. The fact that you’re struggling so fiercely with a simple moral issue only tends to confirm St. Paul’s teaching.http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/homosexuality/answering-top-10-arguments-used-to-push-homosexuality.htmlI'm not sure, but this looked interesting too – answering tough questions posed by homosexuals:http://vimeo.com/2978095I like his early line – “how you feel does not dictate right and wrong….the way you feel does not dictate morality…..”Now I’m off to read an excellent book about the Resurrection of Jesus Christ by N.T Wright. Praise God that He loved us enough to die for us as we are, but too much to leave us as we are.
mikewf: I’ve addressed all the points to me by the other poster, but the fact that you referenced narth pretty much discredits you. You might as well reference conservapedia or jesus-is-savior.com, or even 4chan. Those are all joke sites or discredited sites.Onto your second point, if you knew anything about anal sex, you will see it’s perfectly safe, or at least as safe as any other sexual act. AIDS also spreads via heterosexual sex, as well as many other means. Also, you have to affirm the fact that not all homosexual men practice anal sex, and you also conveniently ignore lesbians, whom are also homosexuals. This shows why your argument lacks logic.Promiscuity is actually rampant among both communities. But as i mentioned earlier, that is an isolated incident. Unless you can prove that every homosexual is promiscuous, that argument falters. It’s like saying most blacks are in poverty. That doesn’t mean all blacks are in poverty. It was declassified as a mental disorder, because scientific evidence supported that notion. If it really were a mental disorder as you claim, most valid credible medical/psychological/scientific organizations would support that notion. But they don’t. All agree that it’s a normal sprectrum of human sexuality, and is not harmful nor wrong.Lol, and homosexuality is not a “lifestyle” Not all homosexuals are the same. Some are doctors. Some are lawyers. Some are college graduates. Some are ghetto. Some are gamers. Some are into anime. Some are religious. There is no single “lifestyle”, and if you don’t understand that, it is evident you haven’t known many homosexuals in your lifetime. What you see on tv is the same stereotype races are portrayed as.See the problem is, you have no support of your “facts” other than discredited sites or sites that your pastor probably led you to. I have been in my commited relationship for many years, and do not have any STD’s and AIDS. I am living proof that you are incorrect. Me and my boyfriend work a normal job like you do, have normal friends like you do, etc. It seems your misunderstanding comes from 3 things: your pastor, ignorance of the gay community, and insecurity. I say insecurity because you seem to think that homosexuality only is male/male, and completely ignore the fact that it includes lesbians. Maybe because lesbians all destroy most of your arguments?
mikewf: LOL, i’m sure that a site titled bible.org is very good evidence that involves science. Most studies including the Spitzer study have been debunked, and most tests showed that the majority stayed the same. The very few that may have changed were never homosexual in the first place, they are bi-sexual, if they are able to be sexually attracted to both sexes. If you think sexuality is changeable, i shall ask you these questions: Are you male? (If not, reverse the questions to the other gender) If so, Are you sexually attracted to other men? Would you be able to enjoy sex with a man? Do you get sexual urges with a man? Do men turn you on sexually and emotionally? Could you be happy with a man sexually for the rest of your life? Does male/male porn or male sexual situations turn you on and arouse you?
mikewf: Ahh, i notice you also bring out Romans. Let us examine the proper interpretation of that as well.If taken out of context, this passage seems to condemn homosexuals. However, when Romans 1:26-27 is considered within the context of Romans 1:16 through Romans 2:16, the Scriptures clearly present a different teaching. Paul was writing to the church in Rome. The Roman church had become troubled by divisions related to spiritual pride. Paul was addressing the Christians in Rome and teaching about the pagans in Rome. After declaring the power of Christ’s gospel to save all, he pointed out that the religious people of Rome had refused to even acknowledge GOD as one of their many gods. They had turned their backs on the one true living God and worshiped handmade idols. Paul explained that as a result of their idolatry, every part of their lives had become corrupt and vile. Paul then told the Roman Christians that they were not to judge others. To judge others is to condemn yourself (Romans 2:1). Christians are to love others out of their brokenness and into the healing wholeness that is found in Jesus Christ. The Greek word Paul used, that has been translated in our Bibles as “natural/unnatural”, relates to that which is against one’s own inherent nature (i.e., heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts). It was also related to Paul’s concept of what was culturally acceptable. The same Greek word is used in I Cor. 11:14-15 in reference to correct hair length for men and women and in Gal. 2:15 in reference to Jews and Gentiles who were such by “nature.” Paul emphasized that IDOLATRY (not homosexuality) was the evil which resulted in temple prostitution, sadomasochism, and lack of regard for others.
mikewf: I’m also slightly aware that you may be trolling. But i will show you why trolling doesn’t work on this topic.For those of you that don’t know what a troll is, they basically are posters that take a side on any sensitive topic (religion, sexuality, etc) and post to rile up and anger other posters for their own satisfaction and fun. They usually dance around a central idea while ignoring all evidence (since their primary motive is to incite anger, not prove anything). Other troll behavior includes twisting your words out of context, name-calling, or doing anything that may get a rise out of you.The best way to own a troll is to get under their skin or ignore them. When a troll realizes he can’t incite anger in people and or get a rise out of them, it irks him. They keep trying, but its fun watching them in desperation as they throw everything at you trying to get any kind of rise. They lose even more, because for each troll, it gives the pro gay marriage side the chance to spread facts and information about homosexuality, to get rid of ignorance. It’s a win/win situation for us. Remember, trolls can’t win unless they incite anger. Merely getting responses is not a successful troll, since anyone can do that. What makes trolling unique is the ability to incite anger, and without doing that, they become useless. So to all posters here, do prove them wrong with facts, but do not let them incite anger.
shadow_man,To me it all boils down to some pretty common sense stuff. If there is a God, a Creator, then it’s pretty obvious that certain body parts were *designed* to work with other body parts. To spell out the obvious (incredible that we must do so in such an “advanced” age), penises were *designed* for vaginas, not rectums. Conversely, rectums were not *designed* to accomodate penises, hence the numerous serious health problems that arise from certain sexual practices. It should come as no great surprise that the Creator would warn His creatures that disordered behavior, behavior that violates the created order, will end with serious consequences, physically, emotionally, spiritually.On the other hand, if there is no God, then the situation is quite a bit worse. For if Darwinian evolution holds the field then there is no greater evolutionary disaster in that sphere than an organism that cannot reproduce itself. In the survival of the fittest, an evolutionary dead-end like that is destined for the biological trash heap. And in that case let’s have no nonsensical talk of human rights, let alone compassion and mercy. There are no rights in that case, no compassion, no mercy. Just survival of the fittest. And a society ordered to Darwinian principles could quite rightly decide that such evolutionary misfits can and should be eliminated for the good of the species.Fortunately there is a God and even more fortunately He offers mercy and grace to us sinners, regardless of the disorders with which we struggle. He offers grace to all. But grace calls for repentance, a turning away from disorder to embrace God’s ordered goodness. Outside is darkness, but with repentance there is life, love, mercy, and grace.
shadow man, No, God did not make you a sinner or a homosexual. It is a consequence of original sin. The removal of God’s special graces with Man’s Fall made us susceptible to death and all things bad even biological forces. Both our bodies and our souls were negatively affected. This Catholicism 101.
shadow man, there are many many usses of toveh in scripture that are morally related that do not relate cult prostitution. It is you who presume that because it is also used with cult prostitution that this somehow proves in does not relate to homosexualuty – even though the wording in Leviticus and 1 Cor 1 Tim is very general “a man who lies with a male as with a woman”. This is homosexuality. The Levitical prohibition is also placed among other sins that are general also and always wrong. Incest wmarriage between son-in-law and mother-in-law was not allowed It should be noted that in near eastern cultures of the time of Israel the most acceptible form of homosexuality was cult prostitution (because they believed the gods made them and wanted them to serve). This is the reverse of today. If you condemned cult prostitution back then you condemned all homosexuality.
shadow man, you say “because things change in 2000 years” response is illogical. Originally you were trying to prove that the meaning from 2000 years ago agrees with your present interpretation. As a test for this I showed that extra-biblical sources did not support your interpretation. It has nothing to do with your response. Please show extra-biblical passages from 2000 years or more ago that suppoort your interpretation.
shadowman, you continue to leap to the conclusion that Jesus non-mention of homosexuality somehow demonstrates his approval. As I said, Jesus said nothing specific about incest or bestiality either. Also that he used the word porneiai which could be a short form for all the Levitical sexual sins. Also, your view of Scripture is sub-Christian, Jesus said to his disciples “he who hears you hears me”. His diciples did condemn homosexuality.
shadow man, No where in scripture or extrabiblical sources is homosexuality seen as positive. With you constant insistence that homosexual marriage was OK back then one would think you would find positive statments. But there are none. Why? Because you assumption that homosexual marriage is OK is wrong.Also, the pagans did discuss homosexual marriage and love of sorts so the concept would have been known to the Jews/Christians. Yet they appear to have ignored this. Your arguments are from silence at best, and at worst since all homosexual activity is condemned. Gagnon’s assumption on marriage is based on Genesis. What is yours based on? Nothing – just silence and blind assumptions. You are guilty of the very things you condemn Gagnon of.- Can’t you see this?
shadow man, Paul used arsenokoites in order to link it back to Levitical law. Arren would not have done this. The Levitical law is very general. Again, you use an argument from silence.
shadow man, the cultures surrounding Israel made distinctions bewteen certains forms of homosexuality and had laws that addressed those situations. For example, it was more acceptible to have sex with someone under your authority than with an equal. Since Israel had all kinds of laws in great deal one would think a distinction would be written into their laws that said to the effect “homosexual marriage blessed by God is OK” and “pederastry is not OK” and ” cult Prostitution is not OK”. But you don’t see this distinction in their laws (and they had examples from their surrounding neighbors). Why is this? Because homosexuaity was ALWAYS wrong.
shadow man, malakos placement with arsenokoites strengthens the homosexual interpretation. Although malakos can mean what you say it was also used to refer to the passive homosexual partner (why did you not mention this?). Given this and its placement with arsenkoitai (active partner) it seems even more likely that Paul was clarifiying condemning that both the active and passive homosexuals were at fault. Again, it reinforces Leviticus interpretation that all homosexual acts were immoral.
By one of the very websites you cite (gaychristian 101) one can see that there are many more references to arsenokoite in the ancient literture ‘without context’ than there are ‘with context’. This make sense if arsenokoite referred to homosexuality in general since no context was needed. It was always wrong even when the pededastry/prostitution condition were not present.
Kaeen, thepalmhq, et al – excellent posts. I wonder though if It might be better to return to the actual article above, rather than continuing to enable Shadowman to misuse the combox for the purposes of advocating the misuse of human sexuality. In my experience, people like this are best left alone so they can face themselves as they are rather than engaging them, which allows them to focus their attention on others as the root of their problems. I believe he needs prayer, not argument – his will seems impervious to it. But that’s your call, of course. If your concern is for the welfare of others who may read the comments – I believe he’s been more than satisfactorily answered, and I doubt much of anyone is continuing to read this article and see these comments any longer – it’s old news. If they are still confused, then they need more help than can be provided in a mere combox. And in my experience, people with Shadowman’s drive to self-justify will continue at it ad infinitum. But to the point of the article, again – I see this as just a simple matter of truth in advertising. When parents pay for Catholic teaching, they expect and deserve Catholic teaching. If you don’t like Catholic teaching, then you shouldn’t send your kid to a Catholic college. I don’t think that’s hard to understand or accept, really.I believe the bishop is right to be very concerned. There’s nothing wrong with presenting opposing views – that’s actually a good thing – and I don’t believe for a minute that the bishop objects to that. But, like me, I suspect that he’s seen what passes for “discussion” and “dialogue” at Catholic educational institutions these days. It seems clear that based on the description o fthe course and other factors, that the bishop is not comfortable that this course will be trustworthy for Catholic students.For some time, “discussion” and “dialogue” have become guises under which to *advocate* for erroneous, non-Catholic beliefs. I know this from personal experience. It’s unethical to use the “Catholic” name to acquire students and authority only to then illegitimately use that authority to teach young minds something else entirely. Such professors should be candid enough to admit they’re not Catholic and go teach at a secular school or start their own school where they can teach their own personal beliefs.
thepalmhq: Lol, once again, you completely omit lesbians. Why is that? Insecurity? The fact of the matter is, as i mentioned earlier, the parts fit well when it comes to male/male sex. There is even a pleasure part in there, which makes it pleasurable for both partners. God designed sex for both straight and gay people. God also never specifically condemned the act as well, unless it was in conjunction with idolatry. Also, as for your disease argument, that fails because both heterosexual and homosexual sex spreads disease. You are trying to single out anal sex, when in fact, all forms of sex have the ability to transfer diseases.Onto your darwinism, you ever heard of recessive genes? In fact, there was a scientific study that shows how homosexuality actually benefits the species.The most recent, sexually antagonistic selection, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617204459.htm, demonstrates the empirical model of what is known about the occurrence of homosexuality along family lines and postulates that it serves to give a reproductive advantage to female members of the family. See, faith can be a good thing for you. But faith is just that, faith. We can interpret faith differently. However, science, is fact, or involves facts.
kaeen341: post 68 – the problem is, i have clearly proven that homosexuality is not a sin. No matter how you try to word it, you claim that God made us this way, hence we are made sinful in your view. But the Bible never says its a sin.
kaeen341 post 69: Actually, majority of the instances involved religious idolatry.”There is good evidence of homosexual cult prostitution in Israel during the period of the divided monarchy. p. 100.The [Hebrew] term [qedesim/qades] denotes men at cult sites who engaged in homosexual prostitution: male temple (or cult, shrine, sacred) prostitutes.p. 101.Qedesim …one of whose cultic functions was to offer their bodies to other men for same-sex intercourse.p. 102.Two other occurances of qedesa in the Bible (Gen 38:21-22; Hos 4:14) also link it with the term zona, prostitute, harlot.p. 103. Homosexuality wrong?The remark in Kgs 14:24 that the people of Judah conformed their behavior to all the abominations (toebot) of the nations which Yahweh dispossessed sounds remarkably like the summary in Lev 18:24-30, which followed a listing of sexual offenses that singled out in particular same-sex male intercourse as an abomination.p. 103.The same-sex role of the assinu, kugarru, and kuluu (who, owing to castration, were certainly unsuitable partners for heterosexual intercourse and impregnation) does provide good evidence for homosexual cult prostitution. p. 104.(Continued next post)
kaeen341 post 69 (Continued)The harsh descriptions of the qedesim in 1-2 Kings (I Kgs 14:24: even qades were in the land) and Job 36:14, along with the epithet of dog in Deu 23:18, suggests a degree of revulsion more suited to same-sex male cult prostitution.p. 104.That means Josiah’s action against the qedesim in the temple precincts was likely taken as a direct result of laws in Deut 23:17-18 regarding the qedesim or dogs. p. 106.It can hardly be denied that… (the author of Job 36:14) regarded the qedesim as homosexual cult prostitutes. p. 108.Cult association is established by the name holy consecrated ones and by the connection to Asherah. The element of prostitution is clear from Deut 23:17-18 (fees for services rendered) and the connection to qedesot, who elsewhere are identified as harlots.p. 108. Homosexuality wrong?The same-sex dimension is suggested by the label dogs,by history of religion parallels, and by the unlikelihood of male heterosexual prostitution. p. 108.The existence of homosexual shrine prostitutes in Judah was a recurring problem. Dr. Robert Gagnon, p. 110.”And this came from your own anti-gay evangelical. This is also confirmed in the links that i posted.
kaeen341 post post 70: Don’t try to take my words out of context. Because that will confirm trolling :) And to win as a troll, you have to incite anger, which you are failing to do. The interpretations i posted are interpreting text that was done 2000 years ago, which is why they take into account the historical times, where homosexual sex was often used to worship other God’s. Homosexuality is not like that today. Homosexuals do not have sex to worship other God’s. That is why homosexuality today is not considered sinful. Nice try :)
kaeen341: post 71: wrote: “word porneiai”LOL, you messed up. You just outed yourself as the same troll that came from http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100426/jennifer-knapp-questions-bible-translation-on-homosexuality/My claim is that it’s not a sin, and i’ve shown that nowhere in the Bible homosexuality is a sin. There is no need to show approval, i just need to prove that it’s not a sin :)
kaeen341 post 73: And where’s the proof of this? The common word for consenting homosexual partners was not used by Paul. As stated before, if he were condemning modern day homosexuality, he would have used the common word during that time period for it.
kaeen341 post 74: The problem with your argument here, is that every time “homosexuality” is condemned in the Bible, whether it be the old testament or new testament, it is affiliated with religious idolatry, and other sins. It is never itself specifically condemned. This is clearly shown in the links i posted. =)
kaeen341 post 75: You are taking the definition which means effeminate. That is inaccurate in describing homosexual men, because that’s a stereotype thats been debunked. Sure there are some feminine men out there, but there’s a lot of gay men that actual like normal people. This post also confirms that poster from christian post =) And i will disprove you here like i did over there wrong every time.
kaeen341 post 76 – Where is your proof of this? :)
mikewf: Lol, more claims without backing yourself up, i see. The problem is, i’ve clearly proven your information and links wrong. I mean, when you have to cite NARTH, which most people know is not a credible site, you have already lost the argument. Then you tried to claim mostly homosexuals had AIDS, when worldwide heterosexuals are mostly afflicted with AIDS. This is common knowledge too. I mean, should we trust someone like yourself who references NARTH? Or someone who tries to claim that AIDS is a gay disease, when any educated person knows that’s not true? The answer is very clear :)
Hi Shadow_manJust so that you know, you are in my prayers as well.I can’t imagine what it must be like to have to constantly and continually defend who you are as a person from vicious attack. Hopefully one day everyone will be more willing to take a moment to consider the fact that they may be wrong.
“I don’t follow your point.”Obviously not. You don’t seem to see how convenient it was for Israelites to justify their military tactics (i.e., wiping out all opponents, men, women and children, except the virgins, of course) through divine mandate. As for Jesus, think of an episode where he and his disciples steal a farmers grain to eat because they are hungry.
a2137e84: Thank you. You are a true Christian =)
jruiz,I asked about Jesus supposedly condoning stealing in the Bible. You’re ignorant of Biblical teaching on the issue, and so you erroneously ascribe something sinful (and criminal!) to Jesus Christ. For the sake of your eternal salvation and the sake of others who you may confuse, I would strongly recommend that you cease.http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/mt12-1.htmlDeuteronomy 23:24 If you enter your neighbor’s vineyard, you may eat all the grapes you want, but do not put any in your basket. 25 If you enter your neighbor’s grainfield, you may pick kernels with your hands, but you must not put a sickle to his standing grain.
I would also point out that you didn’t really interact with my main point. And finally, like Shadowman, you’re not dealing with the article and are instead using the combox to push your personal agenda. While I answered you for the sake of innocent readers – a defense of our Lord, and on the chance that you might listen, I won’t be engaging you further to enable your misuse of the combox, either.May God bless you.
mikewf: Lol, i see that you picked out a line from Deut that has nothing to do with homosexuality. Not surprising considering you also referenced NARTH =) I interacted with all of your points, and rebuttaled all of them successfully, and pointed out why your links are not credible.
shadow_man,please explain how two men can be fruitful and multiply. also, please include bible references.
poompod: The procreation argument lacks as it still doesnt prove that homosexuality is wrong. The only purpose of life isnt to procreate, and there are many other ways individuals can be useful and beneficial to humanity. And the only purpose of sex isn’t to procreate. Sex is also an expression of love, intimate bonding, and pleasure between two consentual partners. If sex was only to continue life, why is there so much pleasure? There is no ill meaning of sex by itself, its a natural instinct. There is no proof that sex must absolutely equal creation of life. That being said, some heterosexuals cannot have kids. Majority of heterosexuals practice safe sex, use condoms, perform anal and oral sex, masturbate, and perform other sexual acts that aren’t vaginal intercourse that dont have the intention of procreating. Almost everyone does those things. By your logic that means heterosexuals are wrong as well. Also, the notion that homosexuals can’t have kids is false, as artificial insemination, IVF, and surrogacy and other methods can easily lead to a child. Oh, and they can adopt too.