If civil unions are just a legal arrangement that no one has a right to bring God into to oppose it, how could the government stop someone who wants to marry their horse? Plenty of people love their pets more than anyone they know. What would be the reasoning for stopping it? People already leave their estates to pets. It just goes to show what happens when we get away from God. He doesnt want us to marry someone from the same sex any more than he wants us to marry a horse.

You're right Clay. That's why Wilbur and I try not to make our relationship any more complicated than it already is. I remember, back in the day, when Dave Crabtree made out his will and left everything to his mother, the car, nobody batted an eyelash. Of course we had bigger scandals back then. Like Darrin Stephens marrying a witch.

I suppose you think that was O.K. just because she was human and female.

“Mister Ed: What do you say we go out riding and pick up a couple of fillies?
Wilbur Post: I'm not a horse, remember?
Mister Ed: Too bad, we could have a ball double dating. “

I married a Jeannie.

Clay,

It is impossible for an animal to enter into a legally binding contract (such as a civil marriage) with a person. Sorry to disappoint.

But for God, one is as wrong as the other. That shouldnt disappoint people, but it does.

Clay,

The State has no interest in what your god "thinks" about the issue ... or at least it shouldn't. None.

And I suspect that disappoints you, but that's the price you pay for living in this country. You get freedom of religion. I get freedom from religion.

No one is forcing you to obtain a same-sex marriage. No one is forcing your church to santify a same-sex marriage. And no one wants to marry his dog.

BankStreet,

You have a real knack for expressing exactly what I think so much better than I ever could. What you said right there is what I believe in a nutshell. Thanks!

And to everyone, I wish to extend Flag Day greetings. Hurrah for the Red, White, and Blue! How fortunate we are to live in this country where our freedoms were so hard-won and protected in our most sacred national document, The Constitution.

Ms Quelquejeu,

You do just fine in making your points here. I enjoy your posts immensely.

The government never does best for the country by straying from what God wants. Ultimately of course we all will answer for what we do here individually. Thanks.

If you are right, Clay, then our nation has a lot to answer for -- with its history of racism, genocide, war-mongering, and economic injustice. I'd like to think that fostering love and commitment between individuals falls pretty low on the list of offenses..

If it is murder and hatred or accepting the marriage of two people that God says is wrong, it is all disobedience as far as God is concerned. People do draw the line in different places but what counts is where He draws it. Thanks.

Clay,

If you were to create a table, with the following columns:

- Hatred of Fellow Man
- Economic Injustice (Poverty vs. Wealth)
- Marital Fidelity
- War vs. Peace
- Consumption of shellfish
- Homosexuality in general
- Gay Marriage, specifically

... and provide biblical citations dealing specifically and unambiguously with each issue, which would have the smallest tally?

I thought so.

And which seems your greatest fixation? Why is that?

Economic injustice isnt on the list unless it means someone deliberately withholding money from someone who deserves it, which I guess would be stealing. Consumption of shellfish isnt on the list either. The New Testament says that we can eat those things not eaten by some before. The rest are all the same. If God says that it is wrong, I wouldnt stand before Him and say, "but there werent that many bible verses about it, so I thought maybe you werent really that concerned." It wouldnt be a good idea. I am not fixated on one sin more than another. I talk about whichever one I get the most responses on and questions on because I dont want to be rude by not responding. Thanks.

Clay – Economic injustice would be on the list. Economic injustice refers to such things as access to health, housing, food security and water and sanitation, Bankstreet feel free to correct me on that. Consider this from Luke 3:11 “He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.” Christ spoke considerably about the evils of wealth and sharing with the poor. How about Matt 25:34-46. How can one truly love their neighbor as themselves and ignore those in need?

I do believe that Mr. Clay is correct. I have checked my list as well and economic injustice definitely is not on the list. Of course we should offer kindness to those with little or no means and we should be careful to do so in a manner that is not condescending. Lack of compassion is one of the uglier inclinations of the Nouveau riche.

But generous charity should not degenerate into Bolshevism my dears.

My sister had a lovely cotillion. Too bad the family had a reversal of fortune when my turn came.

Clay, I think you missed my point (you seem to do that a lot). I'll try to be clearer.

If you indeed tallied up the list I proposed, I think you would find an OVERWHELMING preponderance of Biblical (I'm talking New Testament here) counsel (commandments, even) regarding human kindness, economic parity, and the maintenance of peace among men and among nations. You would find NOTHING among the teachings of Jesus regarding homosexuality. Nothing. You might be able to point to a couple of verses among Paul's letters that may or may not (depending on the translation and the interpretation) allude to same-sex relationships.

And yet you (and so many of your fellows) are unnaturally fixated on these private acts of love, which, in and of themselves, harm no one.

Until you tell me you have given away all of your possessions to the poor and are living a life of abject poverty and have publicly and permanently renounced war (even against Islam, my friend), your screeds here have absolutely no credibility .. as you are not in a position to "cast the first stone."

Until that time, I suggest you listen and practice humility

Thanks!.

Throughout the New Testament, Christ clearly supports what His Father laid down prior, even though he did away with rituals such as not eating pork, etc. He said that a man is not to divorce his wife, not that a man is not to divorce his husband. It isnt a matter of casting a stone, it is a matter of being obedient and not being afraid to say the truth, even though many homosexuals want to think that what they do is now approved by God. As Johnny Weir stated to the press, "I think Christ was a woman, ha ha." He wasnt. For me not to tell you that you need to listen and act as though I am supposed to be humble about this matter would do you a huge injustice. I witness to gays because of my concern for them. Two of my former friends from school were homosexuals who died of aids. Thanks.

I'm sorry for the loss of your "former friends," Clay. I have lost many, many heterosexual friends and relatives over the years from heart disease, cancer, accidents, and mere old age. Perhaps heterosexuality should be blamed for these deaths?

Homosexuality doesn't cause AIDS, by the way; the disease is caused by a virus, and straight folk are as susceptible gay folk. In fact, HIV/AIDS is now the leading cause of death among Black women between the ages of 25 and 34.

And ... speaking of "truth" and adherence to Jesus' EXPLICIT commandments (as opposed to those you tease out of what he DID NOT say), how are you coming along with your divestiture of all your worldly goods? Not so easy to follow those commandments as it is to point out how others engage in activities you yourself find unattractive (and therefore "sinful") is it?

Glad to hear the NT "repealed" Leviticus 18:22. It's a shame that you (and others) seem to have crafted a faith that clings to it, like a talisman.

There is a difference, Clay, between "not being afraid to say the truth" and being afraid to see the truth. And the truth in this case is that homophobic bigotry is man made. It does not come from God at all.

It comes from the same cesspool as racism, Nazism, and misogyny. It is a disgrace to Christianity to use a loving God as a crutch with which to trod out evil hatreds.

As I have said before: "Think first about the foundations of humility. The higher your structure is to be, the deeper must be its foundation."

Absolutely. Hate the sin, love the sinner. I havent said anything else here, that homosexuality causes aids or any such thing. If I was afraid of homosexuals or hated them I doubt that I would bother to witness to them. And I have met gays who have accepted the Lord. Thanks.

From Wikipedia:

"Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people identified or perceived as being homosexual. Definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and irrational fear. Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of a perceived non-heterosexual orientation.

In a 1998 address, author, activist, and civil rights leader Coretta Scott King stated that "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood." "

Sounds to me , Clay, that your attitude fills the fill.

Oh, and Clay .... although I am much more than my homosexuality, that aspect of my nature cannot be separated from the comprehensive "me" ... so your "love" is indistinguishable from hate.

Thanks.

Bankstreet - My only problem is that the term is misused to classify anyone who feels homosexuality is immoral as having homophobia. I believe if is possible to view it as immoral and not be consider homophobic. While I conisder it immoral I don't consider it any more or less immoral than any other sins we can commit

It seems to me that you want me to be an enemy no matter what I say or no matter what my attitude is. I wont be discouraged from witnessing though. To encourage people to accept God certainly doesnt dehumanize them. God bless.

Yes, I guess I don't consider homophobia to be any more or less immoral than any other sins we can commit, unless it's acted upon. That's when we as a society hit new depths of depravity.

Ravensfan,

We've had this discussion before, but ... if homosexuality doesn't entail choice, how can it be "immoral"? Murder, theft, promiscuity -- all these require choice (and are indeed "immoral"). My homosexuality involved no decision on my part. Given that my sexuality is as much a "gift from god" as is yours, why am I bound not to act on my sexuality and you are free to responsibly do so?

And Clay, while it is difficult for me to characterize someone I know only from Blog excahnges as my "enemy," you are certainly not my ally as I pursue my rights as a citizen. I respect your right to "witness," so long as you respect my civil liberties and my pursuit for equality under the Consitution.

Ravensfan, last I checked in you were a practicing Catholic. My Catechism does not suggest that homosexuality is immoral. Perhaps you can cite chapter and verse. I think if you look into it you will find that certain sexual acts, among them masturbation and contraception, are considered on a par with same sex intimacy. If you want to accept that definition of immorality that's fine. It is not homophobia.

If, on the other hand, you accept discrimination on the basis of that moral opinion you are guilty of homophobia. If you would want to be both morally and intellectually consistent then you would need to expand your prejudice to those groups as well.

Would you -

Forbid people who masturbate or use condoms from marriage?
Forbid adolescents who masturbate from attending the prom with a person of their choice?
Allow employers to fire those who use the pill?

Sadly many in the nominally Christian world use the language of morals to defend very serious offenses against charity.

The bible says that homosexuality is wrong. It also forbids sex with people we arent married to. Where does it forbid masturbation? When someone fantasizes about having sex with someone they arent married to while doing it? I guess that would mean that it is therefore a sin. Christ said that he who lusts after a woman is considered as having adultery with her. Where does it forbid contraception? Does it say that we are always supposed to be trying to have kids when we have sex? I dont think so. If that was the case then a couple with a child due would be told not to have sex. Some of these things you mention are not on the same level as homosexuality.

Bankstreet - I'd prefer not to reopen that debate as you and I disagree, respectfully I hope. The point of my comment is the labeling of all who feel its wrong or immoral as homophobic. You ask me to answer why you were created differently and I am sorry but I can't. That's a question only God can answer.

Dana – You are correct I am a practicing Catholic CCC 2357 & 2358. I don't believe it uses the word immoral so if you prefer the description there that’s fine. I agree with you on the other sex acts. I am not singling out homosexual only ones nor was that my intent. Since the others don’t usually get labeled as phobic I did not mention them.

The answer to your 3 questions is no to all. Since I am not without sin I certainly won't cast any stones at anyone else for theirs. I oppose discrimination or denying of rights for any reason. I completely agree with your last sentence on charity.

Bankstreet - That Anonymous post was mine. Sorry I must have forgotten to put my ID on it.

Clay, I was addressing another Catholic. We, of course, know that the heretical sects practice masturbation and contraception with the belief that it is not sin. I was asking Ravensfan to explain his view in a manner consistent with church teaching.

Thanks for clearing that up Ravensfan.

Clay where does Christ forbid alcohol consumption? If I use your reasoning then you should have no objection to it correct? Doesn’t the Bible say to not give into the desires of the world? Wouldn’t that cover those things?

Ah Clay, fantasizing about someone one is not married to while masturbating--what a mouthful--that is sin? Delicious, my man. But masturbating while thinking about a deep void--or thinking about one's spouse--some would ask what's the difference between a void and the last--anyway masturbating while fantasizing about a deep void--now that is virtue! Wow! The religious--the religious--they are sacrilegious--simply audacious--all the things they must ponder to categorize as sin--make them not only predacious but also bodacious--it is so clever to be salacious while pondering on another's sins!
Ravensfan Anon

Ravensfan,

I'm going to flog the dead horse one more time. Indulge me in a parable.

Imagine a land called ...The United States. Remarkably, this land is governed by a Constitution identical to our own.

In that land, a sect of Christians discovers that a little discussed, little known passage of Scripture condemns left-handed people to the scorn of God. After all, didn't Satan sit at the left hand of God. After all, they aren't called "sinister" for nothing.... Etc., etc., etc.

The sect maintains that left-handedness is a choice made by rebellious and "immoral" people. After all, there are therapies to "correct" left-handedness. And ... it's only a matter of discipline to change oneself to the "good" hand.

This sect appeals to the masses and grows in political power.They are able to convince legislatures that left-handed people should not be allowed to marry or have children (so as to lessen the likelihood of there being born even more left-handed people).

You, ravensfan, as a Christian, acknowledge the presence of this piece of Scripture but happen not to believe that it has the power of Law. You are not a member of this sect. You, in fact, hold the heretical views that "handedness" is an immutable part of the human condition, that efforts to change "handedness" are dangerous and ultimately unsuccessful, and that "handedness" has no bearing on a person's worthiness before God.

How do you, ravensfan, respond to this Brave New World?

BankStreet, here is the salient documentation:

92357 Left handedness has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents left handed acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "left handed acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and digital complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

92358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated left handed tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

92359 Sinister persons are called to right handedness. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Well if there are sects that practice contraception then they help more poor kids who have parents who cant afford to take care of them from having more brothers and sisters to make it worse. The bible isnt that clear on preventing pregnancy. There are certainly health hazards associated with it, depending on how it is done. As far as drinking goes, no, Christ drank wine and created it for a wedding. What the bible does say is that drunkeness is wrong. How much wine can you drink before you feel tipsy? Two glasses? As far as what sin is, the bible is clear on it, especially when speaking of sexual sin. There isnt much need to ponder on anything.

Clay a classic sentence that distills you--there isn't much need to ponder on ANYTHING! Wow what insight.
Ravensfan Anon

BankStreet – The horse and I are both grateful on your flogging decision. Now for your parable let me try and give you my response. Like that sect I would believe that it’s presence in Scripture means using ones left hand should wrong. That said I would also remember the teaching about judging others so I would try to refrain from doing so to those who choose to use their left hand. I also would realize that Christians were never told in Scripture to use the power government to force beliefs through legislation. One has to choose to believe and to follow them. I would also realize that the secular law of your parallel United States that guarantees my right to my beliefs also guarantees the rights of all of us including the left-handed. Therefore I would oppose any attempts to deny rights to left-handed people. As for worthiness before God that is not my decision to make. I would be quite happy to find out that the Scripture piece was misquoted and left-hand believers with God when my time came.

I hope covers everything.

Ravensfan,

Almost.

The point of my parable was to raise the question of "immorality." Do I gather correctly that, given the terms of the parable, that you would deem the left-handed "immoral"?

Writing in Truth and Tolerance the then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:

"Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes, not divine, but demonic."

This would be in agreement with Ravensfan's belief that "Christians were never told in Scripture to use the power government to force beliefs through legislation."

Some Christians, though, miss the whole point about the role of free will and of conscience in our individual relationship with God. They reduce it to a formula, and it fails.

Don't forget, ravensfan ... you are not a member of that sect. Just as in "real life," you do not subscribe to all the tenets held by some Christian sects (those who oppose blood transfusions or access to modern medicine, for example), in the parable, you have views that differ from those of the "anti-lefties."

I realize I am laboring that poor horse mightily.

You have given me a respectful and thoughtful response. The larger point I was trying to demonstrate is that "morality" is mutable and that it is not without hazard when applied to situations in which the "offense" is outside the control of the "offender," despite what those finding fault might think.

The government is made up of the people. If God expects us to accept Him, not exempting anyone, then He expects all of the government to support Him. Wherever it doesnt, it isnt doing what He wants. For the government to allow prayer in schools is not demonic. That depends on who you pray to. There are a lot of things about the Catholic Church that are satanic themselves. You can read the Chick tract about the church to find out what they are, but in my opinion the main thing is pride and straying from scripture. That keeps us in the wrong direction.

Bankstreet - I would deem the act of using your left hand to be immoral in the parable. I don't determine who is and is not moral. That would be judging something Christians are not supposed to do.

Dana - I like that quote. Something our friend Clay should think and pray on.

For the government to allow prayer in schools is not demonic. That depends on who you pray to.

Clay, I certainly don't want to misconstrue what you're saying here, but are you suggesting the government should allow prayer in schools as long as students are praying to the right god? And that there would be some reliable way to ascertain who is praying to whom?

Bankstreet - I forgot to compliment you on being able to conduct a discussion with someone you don't completely agree without resorting to appeals to ridicule and personal attacks. It is good to have someone to challenge you to stop and reflect and at times pray on your beliefs and faith. You always do a good job of asking the types of questions that require that.

ravensfan,

Thank you for your kind words. Our exchanges are always civil, and you are as responsible for that civility as I.

So...in the parable 'world," you would subscribe to the notion that left-handedness was "immoral," based on the teachings of the sect...even though you are not a member of the sect?

By extension, this would suggest that you (in the "real" world) subscribe to standards of morality set by denominations of which you are not a member. Jehovah's Witnesses (historically ...I think they have tempered this now), for example, did not allow blood transfusion, citing Scriptural prohibitions. Because they are able to point to scriptural authority (just as the "anti-lefties" do), you hold blood transfusions to be "immoral"?

What does God want? Does He want us to pray to Him? Yes. Does He want people in schools to not pray to Him? No. Does He want people in schools to pray to other gods? No. So what do you think He would want schools to push Camille, even if there was no reliable way to ascertain Who or who a student is praying to?

Bankstreet - The sect has nothing to do with it. My belief would be based on the Scripture and the teaching of my church. That I share a common belief with the sect is a coincidence and as you point out we don’t agree on everything.

In the real world the fact that I share some beliefs with other groups doesn’t mean I share all of there beliefs. In the case of Jehovah's Witnesses there far more points of disagreement than agreement.

Clay – I’ve read the Chick tracts and the ones on the Catholic Church besides being lies violate Christ teaching on judging others. They represent Jack Chick’s biased personal opinion on Catholicism and nothing more. You have never actually made a case for the Catholic Church straying from Scripture. Maybe you should try reading that book I mentioned several times “A Biblical Defense for Catholicism” It was written by a former evangelical who after studying to prove the straying from Bible you claim found it more scripturally based and up becoming Catholic.

That acceptance of God has to be a free will choice and not one forced by the government. No one is stopping anyone from praying to God. The only thing being stopped is forced prayer. Where did Christ tell us to use the government to force prayer to God? To mean anything prayer has to be done sincerely and that can only be done by choice not the school.

I think He would want schools to push academics, particularly the teaching of science so that students could properly appreciate the marvelous world they live in. And mathematics, so they can learn how to manage their money properly and possibly have some left over to give to the needy. Also history and civics, so they can have some understanding of how a democratic society functions and the importance of cherishing and preserving our freedoms. He would definitely want the students to learn how to read literature and develop an awareness of the nuances of language and verbal imagery and metaphor. Finally, He would want the schools to push art and music so that all children could experience the miracle of creation and meaning of soul.

And then, He would want the little scholars to go home to their loving families and offer a prayer of thanksgiving.

We asked da Huongan Asogwe to lead de class in prayer. The chillun conjure up da Shango an' da good Gawd bringa whole messa storm on de schoolhouse and them gets off for da day.

Ha! Ha Ha!

“To understand the living, you got to commune with the dead.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shango
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houngan

ravensfan,

The old nag is officially retired, either to pasture or the glue factory -- your call.

You are a most worthy sparring partner, my friend.

God definitely doesnt want forced prayer. But prayer that is allowed, along with the other subjects, is a great idea. And what prayer would he want us to encourage in schools? Prayer to Him. If a student decided not to pray or to pray to someone else that will always be an individual decision. Thanks.

The sort of prayer I encountered in elementary school and which was prohibited by Supreme Court rulings in 1962 and 1963, was certainly "forced" in so far as MIss Melvin kept her eagle eye on anyone who didn't mumble the Lord's Prayer at the start of the school day.

As has been said here MANY times, no one (and no court) can ban prayer anywhere. What is (appropriately) banned is school/state-sponsored public prayer. As the courts have repeatedly found, even "voluntary" public prayer, when it is part of a school event, is not voluntary.

Once again, Clay, are you really asking the State to mandate what our children pray??

Silly question. I guess you are.

Bankstreet,

Lets say we retire him. You are worthy sparring partner as well. You challenge me to examine my beliefs and at times question them. In case we don't have anymore exchanges to day have a great weekend my friend.