Shouldn't Catholics and other Christians be organizing grassroots efforts to oppose a recent decision of the Vermont Supreme Court that will extend to gay and lesbian couples the same rights and benefits that male-female married couples enjoy?

-- Mike Reid (ptschee@aol.com), December 29, 1999

Answers

The short answer is NO

Catholics and other Christians should make their objections known in an effort to dissuade gay and lesbian couples from getting married, and especially if these marriages are Christians ones invoking the presence of God.

They can then respond by telling you in no uncertains terms that, whilst they acknowledge your objections, they see no reason why they should be denied the rights and benefits that are granted to every other "normal" citizen of the United States.

The law is there for the benefit of everyone, and exists _solely_ to protect an individuals right to life, property, and self determination. Does the granting of equal status to gay and lesbian couples infringe your rights? I think not. It may infringe what you perceive as your right to live in a Christian society (whatever that is), but you do not have that right. Aetheists and pagans do not have to right to live in a solely aetheist or pagan society.

- So Jesus said to them, "Well, then, pay the Emperor what belongs to to the Emperor, and pay God what belongs to God." -

I always taken this to mean that respecting the law (even though it permits things that you find offensive) does not conflict with your Christian faith. The basic law exists for the protection of us all (from each other unfortunately), but you are perfectly entitled to make additional laws for yourself. A Christian is not offending God if they decide not to oppose this Court decision. God knows that their real loyalty lies with him, and not to the state.

The law does not condone or condemn that things it allows people to do; it just allows people to do these things. Giving gay and lesbian couples the same benefits as "normal" couples is not the same thing as publicly endorsing their behaviour. If these couples said that this decision meant that Christians had no right to publicly question their behaviour, then they would also be in the wrong. We can debate personal morality till the cows come home, but the final decision must be left to the individuals conscience.

I said in another post that the value of any moral system can by judged whether it allows people to reject it or not. You can achieve your moral objectives by legislative force instead of persuasion, but that doesn't mean you have won the argument.

Do you want to live in a theocracy, or does the seperation of Church and State (which is what I think Christ was describing) mean nothing to you?

-- Matthew (matthewpope@aol.com), December 30, 1999.

Matthew, you said:

"Giving gay and lesbian couples the same benefits as "normal" couples is not the same thing as publicly endorsing their behaviour."

I'm a bit paranoid I guess, but I disagree. If marriage is allowed, it IS an endorsement of behavior. For example, shouldn't a married couple be allowed full adoption rights, etc.? OTOH, what's *wrong* with a gay couple adopting a child? It probably beats an orphanage. I don't know, I'm all for freedom in its myriad forms, but there's a point where I personally draw the line at what (I feel) society should condone. If homosexuals can be married, how about pedophiles? should they get full rights to rear children, etc. too? After all, they might otherwise be good people...

No easy answer, but my vote is NO,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.com), January 08, 2000.

Frank,

Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to any of this, and a lot of revolves around assumptions

The difference between homosexuals and pedophiles is quite clear. Homosexuals couples consent to be with each other whereas pedophile "couples" do not. It's like comparing a hard-core sadistic pornography video to a snuff movie. The acts in the porn video may be "disgusting", "obscene", "vile", "sick" etc., but everyone has agreed to take part [I know I'm ingnoring any economic pressure that might be involved in these "choices"]. In a snuff film (or a pedophile film) the victims (no "" here) have definitely not agreed to take part. That is the difference. Consent is everything.

I believe that pedophiles and homosexuals and heterosexuals all have physiological origins. Pedophiles are very dangerous individuals because they are not aware that what they are doing is wrong; there behaviour is as natural to them as homosexual and heterosexual behaviour is to homosexuals and heterosexuals. Again, the only difference in consent.

Homosexuals do not like being lumped in with pedophiles by the way. I'll agree that they are both departures from heterosexuality, which IS the pattern most commonly observed in nature. Homosexuality is not natural in a purely biological sense, but I believe that is natural in the sense that it is naturally occuring (not a choice) and acceptable (not offensive). Let's not get all rosy-eyed about heterosexuality either; a teacher from my old school was disqualified for having an affair with two female sixth-formers. And there's all the adultury and jealousy and psychotic behaviour etc etc etc. A lot of this behaviour is also natural (of course men of all ages are attracted to young women), but it would be catastrophic if it was indulged on a lot scale. Morality exists to discipline natural urges and ensure some degree of social stability.

Catholics get offended when people think all Priests are closet homosexuals who like abusing their charges . Homosexuals are offended by people thinking that they are all pathological promiscuous STD ridden perverts who hang around in public toilets all day. It is really too much to think of a homosexual couple as normal?

In the UK (see, I am assuming that you are from the US) there is a big ebate about repealing "section 28"; this part of the Education Act forbids schools from "actively promoting" homosexuality (my blanket term for Gays & Lesbians). It is a very poorly worded, and exists primarily to protect under-age schoolchildren from the advances of corrupt teachers. However, it also prevents teachers from discussing homosexuality within the general sphere of sex education, and this is why some wish to have it removed.

All my views on homosexuality (I even find that phrase offensive) are based on my belief that human sexuality is very much pre-determined. Homosexuality is neither right or wrong; like heterosexuality, it just IS.

In a somewhat perverse way, I use the existence of homophobia as evidence of this. By being so hostile towards homosexuals, homophobes actually undermine their insistence that homosexuality is a choice people make (their inability to comprehend why someone would choose to "become" a homosexual probably means that it isn't a choice in the first place). None of my homosexual friends chose to be the way they are.

The recent decision of the UK parliament to lower the age of homosexual consent was met by cries that "normal" heterosexual boys would be coerced into becoming homosexual. This just simply isn't possible; anyone who has ever tried to be something that they are not has always reverted back to what their instincts tell them they are.

Our sexuality is probably the most fundamental aspect of our personality, and influences all of our decisions. I do not see how something so primal could be culturally influenced. I've always favoured nurture over nature, but I think nature is decisive in this case.

I also don't believe that "hate the sin, but love the sinner" thing can be applied to homosexuals. Liars can stop being liars, adulterers can stop being adulterers, thieves can stop being theives etc., but homosexuals cannot stop being homosexuals. In this case the "sin" and the "sinner" are inseparable. If you say that homosexuality is an abomination, you say that homosexuals are an abomination. People can hold that view if they want, but have to come to terms with the implications of what they are saying, and not try to muddy the issue.

I wouldn't want to be perceived as an abomination because of something that I cannot change about myself.

There is also the hypocrisy of singling out one "sin" for special treatment. We live in a society full of theives, adulturers, and worst of all, liars, but these people are not persecuted like homosexuals are - probably because, in the case of liars, we'd be persecuting ourselves. I know this contradicts my argument about singling out sins, but I believe that mendacity is the greatest sin of them all. It is a lie in itself; lying is such an up-front and unbearable word so we choose to call it mendacity instead

That's my lecture out of the way! (and it wasn't aimed at anyone specific)

The problem as I see it is that very few people are prepared to give homosexuals equal status. The supporters of section 28 do not want to see homosexual heterosexual relationships given equal status by its removal.

The adoption issue is a good example. I recently watched a discussion programme on television, and the whole panel skirted round the issue. None of them would publicly say that they believed that being homosexual automatically meant that you were incapable of being a fit parent. Adoption is a trial for any couple; many heterosexuals couples try to adopt and fail, but homosexuals aren't even allowed to argue their case. They are automatically deemed unfit, and this is a prejudgement (a prejudice). The right to adopt is granted by the state (who has the interests of the child in mind, not the parents), and it is not a right that everyone is entitled to. By all means argue that under no circumstances should a homosexual couple be allowed to adopt a child, but please be honest about your prejudice.

Of course Christians are entitled to ask homosexuals to adopt Christian morality. There are many monogamous stable homosexual relationships that conform to what Christianity expects from heterosexual couples. The only serious question mark hangs over homosexual acts. I'm not going to argue that the Bible does not condemn anal sex between men, but I will point that anal sex between heterosexuals couples has been going on for millenia (its still a taboo subject). It was even practiced as a form of contraception in some Mediterranean countries. I see anal sex as a potentially unhealthy sexual practice with no moral associations. I used to believe that Christian homosexuals were fine as long as they led celibate lives, but then I realised that anal sex was not just a homosexual thing, and that it was hypocritical to expect homosexuals not to do something that many Christian heterosexual couples do.

I believe that monogamous commitment between couples is far more important than how those couples express their feelings for each other. I know its pushing it to suggest that Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed because their behaviour was just promiscuous, but that is the conclusion I have had to reach.

Homosexual marriages (which is where this all started) really present a problem for the Church. I'll stick to my original argument and say that there is no reason why civil marriages between homosexual couples (with full benefits) shouldn't be allowed, but the issue of Church marriages for homosexual couples (I'm assuming that they are Christian couples) is a minefield.

Whilst I can stretch Christianity morality to allow sexually active monogomous homosexual couples, I don't see how a marriage can be allowed (I know that justifies pre-marital sex in this case...). The Christian ideal is a man and a woman joined in holy matrinomy in the resence of God, and is in fact a trinity of sorts. I don't see how this ideal can be compromised, and it leaves homosexual Christians in an unbearable position.

I think this represents a huge dilemma for the Church. I must repeat what I said in the original answer about the state allowing such marriages not being a Church concern. Homosexual Christians are forced to accept a civil marriage because the Church cannot accomodate them, and this must be awful.

Is it ever OK to be Gay?

You have some people telling you are an abomination, and you must be forced to live a life of abstinence (from adoption, from sex, from the armed forces) in ordered to be deemed acceptable.

You have some people telling you that you should be exterminated because you have nothing to contribute to a heterosexual society, unless you accept all the restrictions outlined above.

You have a Church that can only accomodate up you up to a point because, through no fault of your own, you have been born with a mindset cannot fit into the gender dominated structure of the Christian faith.

It is so easy to assert that people choose to be homosexual, because then they bring all this damnation upon themselves and they can just be persecuted for being stubborn subversive deviants.

The much harder thing to do is to accept the fact that it just IS, and all of the theological trauma that comes with such an acceptance.

I really ought to stop, but I am glad that I have seen none of the homophobic nonsense on this forum that I see on "The Christian Church" forum. No-one here says that AIDS is a gay disease, or a punishment from God. True, the epidemic never happened and the amount of research is disproportionate to the number of sufferers, but this is only the West. AIDS continues to decimate much of Africa, and it heterosexual behaviour that is spreading it.

I believe it is OK to be Gay, but not promiscuous... what does everyone else think?

Are Christian homosexuals and the Church irreconciliable on the issue of Christian marriages (state marriages are not the Church's concern)?

I know many people here reject the idea that sexuality is biologically pre-determined, but is that because the choice view is easier to live with?

And finally, does my view that homosexuality just IS create serious problems for the Church?

I just think some of the Church's approaches to this have been extraordinarily bad - the attempt to "cure" or "convert" or "heal" homosexuals comes to mind.

-- Matthew (matthewpope@aol.com), January 08, 2000.

Matthew, I realize commenting on a post line by line is a bit unfair, but wanted to clear up a couple things I may have given you the wrong impression on by my brevity. First, I wasn't implying that there was a *continuum* from homosexuality to pedophilia, but rather if you accept heterosexual marriage as the current norm, after allowing homosexuals marriages, allowing homosexual couples to adopt would be the next court question to arrive. After that, what about when two pedophiles want to get "married" and later adopt a child? Legally what would the opposition be if they state they have no prurient desires on this particular child? My concern is that this issue is really at the top of a "slippery slope" and that if society starts down it, we may not be able to get back even to where we are now. Do I think that there are *some* homosexual couples who would make better parents than *some* of the heterosexual couples out there? Probably. Would I want to open the floodgates for all alternative lifestyle couples to adopt? No. I guess for me the big question is what is the purpose of marriage? Having a family of my own, I can say that for me undergoing the Sacrament of marriage represented a time in my life when I decided to settle down with one person and raise a family, etc. I don't think that at the time the laws enacted to protect married status were made they were made to *exclude* homosexuals, I doubt if anyone would have considered that possibility seriously enough to discuss. For me the idea of a marriage (again in general) revolves around the possibility of raising children. Children require much time, responsibility and money to raise, and sacrifices on the adults in a marriage are required for this (one person staying home, mommy track career, etc). That to me is what the state's interest in defining married status is is protecting the rights of the child and adults who are giving up some of their autonomy, earning potential, etc. to participate in a whole. My example for this would strangely be in a divorce. We would recognize that a wife has a right to child support, alimony, etc. from her husband if she stayed home to raise the kids while he advanced his career. They entered into a contract where each had responsibilities, and when this contract was broken, neither side should end up penalized for fulfilling their half of the bargain. The contract part of marriage seems to me to be irrelevant in what I would assume homosexual marriages would be like where each partner would or could be working. Aren't there exceptions to this (i.e. childless heterosexual couples)? Of course! But conceptually my idea is that marriage protects a family unit that has many more obligations on it than would two single people living together. Allowing homosexual marriages for me would fundamentally change what the nature of marriage is, in that these unions by definition have no possibility of having children or the usual responsibilities that current married life leads to. Yes, I'm from the U.S. No, I don't have any particular gripe with homosexuals doing what they want in the privacy of their own homes, that's between them and the Lord who is a much better judge of what's right and wrong than I! But that's not the issue here, the issue is whether the state should allow homosexual marriages, and my answer is no because by doing so you would change the nature of what a marriage is.

I dont know if that clears up anything, but it's definitely longer! :)

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.com), January 09, 2000.

Matthew,

Comments??

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.com), January 24, 2000.

Expect some soon - been busy - more important things to attend to than forum addiction (like getting a job for instance).

-- Matthew (matthewpope@aol.com), January 25, 2000.

Matthew,

LOL! Well if those are your priorities, I guess you'll have to go with them.

Good Luck in the search,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.com), January 26, 2000.

Marriage and devorce is a religious issue, rather they are married by the court, shouldn't matter, don't be a missionary, when the time come when the willing to change and seek forgiveness, then let that time come, otherwise you just create more evil.

-- Tony (awalker@teknett.com), April 18, 2002.

The Vermont Spreme Court ruled that homosexual couples can enjoy the same benefits and rights as male-female couples. Through the years our countries moral decline has increased dramatically it's gone from children chewing gum in class to shootings in school. From making out at the driveins to passing out condoms to students . Now we have just begun to hit the surface by now legalizing the very imorality that our country scorned just thirty ears ago. Will we continue to justify and except these imoral acts? How far will we go untill we say enoughs enough? When do we say no more?

-- chris ellison (mr_yo23@yahoo.com), June 29, 2003.