Outrage @ Outrage

[Guest]

Congratulations, Homer, on another great post! Thanks for the clarity on the power of stigmata.

Yes, it is the disapproval of society that has the greatest power to restrain individuals within our society.

I never dreamed that within my life time I would see the complete banning of smoking in public places in the province of Ontario where I live. It doesn't seem long ago when eating in a restaurant, I had to pick up my plate and run to a different part of the restaurant when a smoker lit up next to me (I am allergic to tobacco smoke). More often than not, after my move to a remote table, someone would come in, and again sit near me and light up. Then I'd have to pick up my plate and run again.

Through a gradual process, such as no longer depicting smoking as "cool" in the movies, by teaching school pupils the dangers of smoking in schools, by having anti-smoking ads on TV, smoking itself has been greatly reduced in society, and those who are hooked on it seem almost ashamed that they practice it.

In contrast, homosexual practice is normalized in the movies, taught in the schools as just another life style, etc. etc., and those who practise it are proud of it.

Yes, Homer. The stigma is an effective deterrant.

However, none of this is the point in issue. JC, we are not trying to "make sin illegal in society." We are not trying to make the practice of homosexuality illegal. All we're trying to do is conserve the definition of marriage.

[Guest]

JC,

I can't disagree with anything you said. I do believe we should work where it may be effective. For example, by trying to get people to realize that a baby in the womb is just that - a baby, not something like an appendix. And concerning the homosexual marriage issue, I think nationally the majority of the people are opposed to it; it is liberal judges who are making it legal. Protesting with signs is probably not very effective but signing a petition, or gathering signatures to put the issue on the ballot can be very effective. And voting, of course.

We need to be loving in our efforts. I suspect aggressive witnessing is appreciated about as much as that phone call at dinner time trying to sell satellite TV or septic tank service.

I must add, though, that I have long been uncomfortable with the degree Christians have gotten involved in politics. I think they believe God is an anti-tax republican. (I say this as a life-long Republican.)

[Guest]

Homer, I'd say you and I agree on these issues. I probably just have a more emphatic way of stating my case. It's easy to see the ugliness that sometimes happens when Christians jump headlong into politics and end up swinging to the opposite end of the spectrum, demaning that all Christians decline the use of political action. I'm not quite to that point but you make a good case in stating that there seems to be a Republican god (who is angry and hates taxes) and a Democratic god (who condemns no one except Big Oil). That's what happens when we tie politics and religion too closely, there arises a god for each party.

I heard a pastor once tell a story about a man he'd met in the Middle East. The man was very hostile to Christianity and when asked to give his reasons the man literally thought George Bush was the leader of the Christian faith and that the United States represented the religion. In other words, he assumed that our President is the one we look to for religious insight and that our loose-morality culture was representative of the church. Yikes! I don't think that Middle Eastern man is alone in his view of the west. How nice it would be if they thought of Christians as the ones patching their wounds and bringing them cold water to drink.

Paidion, you've given sound reasons for wanting to defend the label of marriage. I'm less optomistic in the results but I encourage you to follow the Spirit wherever he leads you on this issue.

[Guest]

Sean,

This is simply conjecture.

Perhaps, but in Dr. Wink's case, it is informed conjecture.

1Co 7:2 has nothing to do with homosexuality. If you are going to use this text to imply heterosexual exclusivity in modern-day marriage, then will you follow that line of reasoning to imply that all texts which only refer to men are intended to exclude women? The fact is that consensual homosexual marriage was unknown in Paul's time and culture, so why would we expect him to speak about it?

Animals that act this way are also heterosexual, otherwise they would go extinct. In other words, they are indescriminate. But that is the difference between man an animals. While we also have animal passions, we are made in God's image and are to reflect that in all ways. Including keeping the church pure from all sin, not just homosexuality. Some animals are killers, even of man. Does that mean then that man can kill if he is pre-disposed to from an early age? If not why not? Isn't that a good way to cut down on overpopulation?

If animals that exhibit homosexual behavior also exhibit heterosexual behavior, then they would technically be bisexual. However, of the animals within 1,500 species that have been observed engaging in homosexual behavior, there have often been a subset that appeared to be exclusively or almost exclusively homosexual. For instance, it is estimated that 4 to 5% of geese and ducks are exclusively homosexual. Life-long exclusively homosexual pairings in penguins have been documented in several zoos. In other cases, it is only the majority of sexual liaisons which are homosexual, with the occasional heterosexual act thrown in (for reproductive purposes, no doubt). For example, Norwegian zoologist Petter Bockman has observed that 90% of the sexual activity within herds of giraffes are male-upon-male. We can only observe an animal's behavior, not ask them their orientation, but if a man had sex 90% of the time with other men and 10% of the time with women, we would probably consider him gay. It seems that within most species, however, the majority are hetero or bi and a small minority are primarily or exclusively homo.

Of course, this has nothing to do with morality. It does, however, seem to contradict the assertion that homosexuality is "against nature". There seems to be a lot of it going on in nature.


Homer,

Of course, the power of stigma can also be used in very negative ways. I'm writing this post from a hotel room in Alabama. Yesterday I saw an inter-racial couple (white man/black woman) checking in at the front desk. Off to the side was a middle-aged white woman who glared at them with a look of utter disgust. The ugly stigma with which that woman viewed the inter-racial couple was once the norm here. Fortunately it has slowly changed, and will continue to change, to one which is more affirming of our common humanity and value in God's eyes.


Paidion,

I understand the passion, but I don't understand the logic of fighting for a Christian definition of marriage in a nation or culture which has a plurality of religions (including a large number who profess no religion). I don't see accounts in my Bible of Jesus and the disciples lobbying against prostitution and unfair tax-collection. Instead, they brought the Good News to prostitutes and tax collectors. Jesus was accused of being a friend to prostitutes, tax collectors and sinners. Would anyone accuse you of being a friend to homosexuals?

[Guest]

Would anyone accuse you of being a friend to homosexuals?

Possibly. But they wouldn't accuse me of marrying one.

[Guest]

I'm sure Mrs. Paidion is glad about that!

[Guest]

Mort, there's a reason I don't argue from nature. Nature has been corrupted by the fall and nothing works as it ought. Some species eat their children but I wouldn't call that natural human bevahior. Paul tells us the creation is actually groaning for restoration, along with humanity. N.T. Wright talks about this in his latest works.

God bless.

[Guest]

Hi JC,

The discussion about homosexuality among animals was instigated by Homer's statement: "As far as gay marriage goes, both natural law and divine positive law inform us that it is wrong. I'm sorry, (figure of speech, I'm not really sorry) it is very disgusting to me."

If by "natural law" Homer meant what commonly occurs in nature, then the observation of homosexual behavior in animal's would contradict that assertion.

That homosexual behavior among animals is a result of "the fall" is a theological assumption. Many Christians would not take that position. A popular scientific postulate (and remember, some scientists are Christians) is that homosexuality among animals (and perhaps humans) is a built-in population control mechanism.

[Guest]

Hi Mort,

You wrote:

The discussion about homosexuality among animals was instigated by Homer's statement: "As far as gay marriage goes, both natural law and divine positive law inform us that it is wrong. I'm sorry, (figure of speech, I'm not really sorry) it is very disgusting to me."

If by "natural law" Homer meant what commonly occurs in nature, then the observation of homosexual behavior in animal's would contradict that assertion.

That is not what I meant at all. Natural Law, regarding our behavior, is not the same as the laws of (physical) nature:

Regarding natural law, Cicero made the classic statement:

There is in fact a true law--namely, right reason--which is in accordance with nature, applies to all men and is unchangeable and eternal. By its commands this law summons men to the performance of their duties; by its prohibitions it restrains them from doing wrong. Its commands and prohibitions always influence good men, but are without effect upon the bad. To invalidate this law by human legislation is never morally right, nor is it permissible ever to restrict its operation, and to annul it wholly is impossible. Neither the senate nor the people can absolve us from our obligation to obey this law, and it requires no Sextus Aelius to expound and interpret it. It will not lay down one rule at Rome and another at Athens, nor will it be one rule today and another tomorrow. But there will be one law, eternal and unchangeable, binding at all times upon all peoples; and there will be one common master and ruler of men, namely God, who is the author of this law, its interpreter and sponsor. The man who will abandon his better self, and in denying the true nature of man, will thereby suffer the severest of penalties, though he has escaped all other consequences which men call punishment.

Thomas Aquinas also said:

...the light of reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the Divine light. It is therefore evident that the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature's participation of the eternal law.

That our Declaration of Independence and Constitution were based on Natural Law is obvious, as the famous statement by Thomas Jefferson shows:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable [inalienable] Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

And Paul wrote:

Romans 1:26-29 (New King James Version)

26. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. 28. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29. being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers.........

In addition to Natural Law, we have Divine Positive Law, i. e., laws that are right because God declared them to be so. The problem for the homosexual propaganda is that homosexual sex is wrong on both counts, Natural Law and Divine Positive Law. People have to be taught not to be repelled by it; naturally recognizing it is wrong, and God's law condemns it.

[Guest]

That homosexual behavior among animals is a result of "the fall" is a theological assumption.

I agree with this "assumption". Indeed, I will make an ever broader "assumption". Flesh-eating animals as well as blood-sucking insects have been corrupted by the fall.

My broader "assumption" is based on the words of God:

And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. Genesis 1:29,30

He had given plants for food for every form of animal life. No exceptions for wolves, snakes, eagles, or mosquitoes.

When I was still a teacher, I made the "assumption" that before the fall, mosquitoes sucked the juices of plants in order to produce their eggs rather than sucking the blood of animals. My "assumption" seemed to be supported by an experiment recorded in a science book I read about a year later. Mosquitoes were isolated so that they could not suck the blood of animals. However, there were plants in this isolation chamber. The mosquitoes sucked the juices of the plants and produced their young just as efficiently as if they had sucked blood.