Andrews Vs. Homosexuality - Part Two
20 October 2009
Andrews Vs. Homosexuality - Part Two
image:
Friday morning at the Andrews University Marriage, Homosexuality and the Church Conference brought the first (and last) semblance of real dialog on the topic of homosexuality and marriage. Three panelists discussed individual freedoms, natural law, politics, and morality vis-a-vis Adventist views on same-sex marriage, and the one dissenting voice permitted during the conference sounded off.
Men Should Be GENTLE Men
Scot Zentner, professor of Political Science at CSUSB suggested that marriage and family have often been understood philosophically, with antecedents in Greek philosophy. Biblical tradition, Zentner posited, holds that marriage is between a man and a woman. Zentner discussed morality in general, and noted its interplay with personal freedom.
The freedoms envisaged by the Founding Fathers, came with certain limitations, Zentner averred. Pornography, libel and slander can be outlawed, restrained, and constrained because underneath broad individual freedoms there are universally accepted standards of right and wrong.
Confessing that he was not a religious person, Zentner said, "You don’t need the Decalogue to know certain things are wrong. You don’t need to be Christian..."
Then he circled back, saying that there was never argument about what a marriage is. We can all agree. If we can’t agree on nature or natural law, we still have the Bible. Biblical tradition is in essential agreement with natural law and philosophical traditions…Plato and Aristotle.
Zentner forcibly argued in favor of traditional gender-defined roles, citing a "generalized understanding of how men are supposed to be and how women are supposed to be. If man is effeminate, it is contrary to how a man is supposed to be," Zentner insisted.
His line of reasoning then waxed puerile:
"What do we cringe more about—two women kissing or two men kissing? It’s not a matter of ideology. It’s a matter of nature," he asserted. The man, the gentleman, is head of house and provider. He went on to note that the Bible precludes same sex marriage and "we should be squeamish when Bobby wants to play with Barbies, not Tonka trucks."
Zentner blurred all sorts of lines
Zentner then addressed the use of "Gay" as a pejorative: "That’s so gay. You’re so gay." The audience laughed. Then he threw down his thesis: "That’s pointing to eternal reality in nature." He went on to mention the idea that the force of reason is stronger in men.
At this point, my professor who sat next to me leaned over and whispered, “Where did they bring this guy from?”
Zentner wasn't done. "I could always go to my mom," he said, "but I always had to meet a mark with my dad."
"Science confirms that women are more nurturant, while men are more stern."
Then he posed a hypothetical: "If I hit a woman in the head and men in the room don’t stop me, there’s going to be problem." Men play roles, which Zentner pointed out should include preventing him from hitting women in the head. (He truthfully said this).
As Zentner's time ran down, he threw in a few more imponderables. "It’s harder to be a man...the expectations are greater for men." In fact, things are so difficult for men that feminists are rethinking their undercutting of role distinctions between men and women, according to Zentner.
He concluded with this: "To me, saying there can be same sex marriage is like pigs flying. It just isn’t so."
Natural Law and Homosexuality
Mercifully, Dr. Gary Wood came to the podium before Zentner elaborated.
Wood, an assistant professor of history and political science at Andrews University tackled some Adventists' belief that politics and morality should be kept separate. It is impossible in fact to do so, Wood said. Politics at its core is about questions of justice. Politics involves making moral arguments.
Wood's presentation began with this question, "Can unassisted human reason without the Bible tell us anything about morality?"
Woods argued in favor of a "neutral morality," which he suggested underpinned the Declaration of Independence notion of certain unalienable rights, and inherent equality.
Nature makes distinctions, Woods posited--natural difference between male and female and real disctinction between animals and people; an ontological dignity that humans have because we have logos, reason. Animals, after all, cannot make moral choices. "We don’t put cheetahs on trial for murdering antelopes," Woods quipped.
Then Woods began to get to the point. We think of nature mechanically, he said, but the important thing is not how something works, but what something is for.
"What’s an acorn for? To become tree. What’s function of eye? To see."
The goal of nature is to actualize the potential of every thing. Natural law points us as far as it can to our natural ends." Human sexuality points to a final end. Distinctions between male and female bodies make it possible to have children. The end is not simply procreation, Woods argued, but it is the end.
"What is the end or purpose of eating...why does nature make it pleasurable or desirable?" he asked. "Same sex marriage," Woods concluded, "requires acceptance and approval about something that is unnatural. It undermines very basis of republican rights themselves. If you compromise on this issue, the rights of the republic are no longer with us."
Lonely Voice of Dissent
Then came the one instance during the conference where a legitimate counterpoint to the conference's rhetorical march saw the light of day. Jason Hines, a graduate of the Harvard School of Law and current Andrews University graduate student said that all lines of reason presented during the morning are found wanting. He addressed and critiqued three types of arguments against same-sex marriage: the religious argument, the sociological argument, and the civil-law/natural morality argument.
Religious Arguments
"If religious freedom means anything," Hines said, "every denomination should choose for itself on a biblical basis what is right and wrong."
For Hines, the realm of Christian morality is within the Christian Church, not society at large.
"While society has Judeo-Christian roots," Hines reasoned, "it is not necessarily that kind of culture. No religious morality can control all of society. The religious argument is out of bounds from the beginning."
Hines saw this problem with religious arguments against same-sex marriage. God gives freedom for freedom’s sake; it is a spiritual, biblical principle. We must uphold people's freedom to engage in the sexual expressions of their choosing. "We must stop throwing people in ocean and telling them not to get wet," Hines said.
Sociological Arguments
Society shows great concern for raising of children in best environment. Research cited during the conference suggests that the optimal environment is in a home with both biological parents. Some contend that homosexuals more often promiscuous, abusive, and therefore their children are at greater risk--so the reasoning goes.
Hines insisted on noting the difference between correlation and causation.
"Studies show what they show," said Hines. But he was quick to add that We don’t know if homosexual parents are the cause. Maybe children would still be gender confused and depressed.
Hines challenged the idea that data are univocal on the subject.
"You bring your studies, I’ll bring my studies, and we’ll dance all night. Whose study is right?" Many studies show that homosexual parents are in no way detrimental to their children.
Civil Law / Natural Morality Argument.
"Natural Law lets you run the race, it doesn’t let you win< Hines began.
Christendom wants to argue religious morality, but doesn’t want to use religious terms, Hines argued. The argument is that homosexual individuals cannot reproduce, but, Hines pointed out, gays might not enter marriage to have kids, just like some hetero couples don’t want children.
Some things fall outside of nature's "intentions", and humanity is under no compulsion to follow natural law. Although all people are created equal, we still enslaved black people, Hines pointed out. We can and do operate outside of natural law.
Furthermore the civil institution of marriage encompasses more than what natural law can explain. Natural law only gets you so far. You eventually have to turn back to some argument to complete the case, back to sociological or religious arguments, Hines said. Natural law doesn’t end the debate.
Hines turned the guns on homosexuals' accusers: "Why is it that homosexuals are promiscuous? Maybe because society is not promoting stable relationships for them!"
We create self-fulfilling prophecies. People who are preventing same-sex marriage from having a positive track record cannot decry its lack of a positive track record. If we accepted homosexuality, perhaps it would increase societal stability, Hines said.
Miller Time
Nicholas Miller, who chaired the panel, then joined the discussion, taking the opportunity to make his case and rebut Hines at the same time.
Nicholas Miller at the mic
"I’m speaking to two audiences today," Miller began, sounding a lot like a lawyer making his closing pitch to the jury: "Christians and citizens."
Decisions need to be made in both realms--the civil and the moral. There are some good moral, scriptural arguments that are not good legal arguments. Miller cited Sabbath and the law. We are opposed to Sunday laws as we would be opposed to Sabbath laws.
Some legal laws are not moral, Miller continued. Perhaps they could be described as amoral. However, there must be overlap between moral and legal arguments.
First, Miller addressed the moral side., pointing out that two institutions find themselves rooted in the Ten Commandments: marriage and family (the fifth commandment) and Sabbath (the fourth). Both suggest authority relationships, and society is structured upon such relationships.
Reciting the oft-expressed (but factually incorrect) idea that the first four Commandments detail duties to God, while the second six describe duties to humanity, Miller noted the overlap of civil morality that cover last six.
Miller claimed that there are markers in Scripture following the Commandments is both a matter of duty as citizens and matter of morality. Traditional family, Miller said, it part of the second stone tablet.
Miller challenged some of Hines assertions. Children do far better raised by two biological parents, Miller insisted.
"Few propostitions have more support than the argument that hetero, biological parents raising kids is best for the kids."
Miller challenged the causation/correlation distinction Hines made by citing tobacco – studies generally showed correlation between smoking and cancer, but not causation. So tobacco industries argued that tobacco doesn’t cause cancer. However, Miller said, the evidence is so compelling, it’s foolish to continue smoking or give cigs to kids.
Miller threw out this stat: Domestic violence in lesbian relationships is at roughly 50%.
"Causation?" Miller asked. "Because of non-acceptance from society? Maybe, maybe, maybe…probably not. I’m not willing to risk our children’s future on a lot of maybes."
As for conflicting studies, "Jason overstates it," Miller said.
"I’m surprised to hear somebody from Harvard say that one study can overrule other studies." Miller proposed that we instead compare the studies and analyze what makes one better than another.
Miller then added a series of assertions to seal the case against same-sex marriage.
Morality is not just a product of Christianity, and marriage is the most universal institution, Miller stated. Even in the case of polygamy, the child has a mother and a father.
Thomas Jefferson was no committed Christian, said Miller, but Jefferson rejected homosexuality as contrary to nature [citation needed]. It isn’t just Christian morality, but "background morality" (by which Miller meant inherent morality) that ties society together.
Miller closed by repeating that it's about the kids, stupid. He maintained that children are best served by being raised by their biological mother and father.
Search
- Elaine Nelson on Why Can’t I Own Canadians?: Grace, the Holy Spirit, and the Threat of Fundamentalism
- Donna Haerich on “Panentheism” Is Not a Four-Letter Word!
- Tom Zwemer on Cornel West Speaks on Truth at Oakwood University
- Tom Zwemer on Why Can’t I Own Canadians?: Grace, the Holy Spirit, and the Threat of Fundamentalism
- Just an Engineer on Satire: The Miracle of Chance
- Jeannie Brown on Strangers in the House
- Alexander Carpenter on Why Can’t I Own Canadians?: Grace, the Holy Spirit, and the Threat of Fundamentalism
- David Read on Why Can’t I Own Canadians?: Grace, the Holy Spirit, and the Threat of Fundamentalism
- Eric Webster on Wilson's War
- Kenneth James on Why Can’t I Own Canadians?: Grace, the Holy Spirit, and the Threat of Fundamentalism
Comments
Just how many gender stereo types can you cram into a single presentation? If this report is accurate, we might have to nominate the distinguished Professor Zentner as a world record holder. Thanks Jared for the updates, there is no way that I could have sat through that conference.
" "What do we cringe more about—two women kissing or two men kissing? It’s not a matter of ideology. It’s a matter of nature," he asserted. "
Seriously? So whether or to what extent we "cringe" at something is now the barometer for determining the rights of other people?
Thanks for your summaries Jared.
I was thinking reading the twitters (and am now even more convinced) that whatever they were paying you to sit and listen to some of this wasn't enough ;) Some does sound interesting though, even if I would disagree with the conclusions.
An example of the former:
Among other problems not worth getting into, I think Zentner is confusing "natural law" with "how I personally think the world should be."
" "What is the end or purpose of eating...why does nature make it pleasurable or desirable?" he asked. "Same sex marriage," Woods concluded, "requires acceptance and approval about something that is unnatural. It undermines very basis of republican rights themselves. If you compromise on this issue, the rights of the republic are no longer with us." "
Huh?
If "nature" makes eating "pleasurable or desirable", that must mean that if "nature" makes gay relationships "pleasurable or desirable" they are in fact, "natural"?
Zentner's presentation was a piece of work, and you didn't need to be a Christian to know it. He had me cringing at his ideas more than once.
David Hamstra
apokalupto
I missed the first half Zentner's presentation so had no idea who he was until later. "Piece of work" is something of an understatement. And his bio did nothing to indicate why he was invited to participate in this conference.
Kelly Youngberg
Zetner: "If man is effeminate, it is contrary to how a man is supposed to be,"
I'm "fruitier" than I'd like to be. Seriously. I'm not flaming, but I'm certainly flickering. There isn't really much I can do about that, unless I became a professional actor and learned to speak in a way that sounds 'less gay', and then pretended that's how I really am.
My point here is that if a man is effeminate, I seriously doubt, for most of us, that it is anything we have any control over whatsoever. Think of all those poor kids in school when we were growing up who insisted that they weren't gay but got teased and tortured mercilessly because no one believed them. (And think of how many of them eventually came out once they were out of the danger zone that is school).
This Zetner guy may claim not to be religious, but he has been infected by the same illogical thinking processes that fundamentalist religion infects millions with. He's got his answer already and so has to make stuff up to back up what he already thinks. The conference organizers should post a public apology for letting this guy near a microphone.
"His line of reasoning then waxed puerile:
"What do we cringe more about—two women kissing or two men kissing? It’s not a matter of ideology. It’s a matter of nature," he asserted. The man, the gentleman, is head of house and provider. He went on to note that the Bible precludes same sex marriage and "we should be squeamish when Bobby wants to play with Barbies, not Tonka trucks." "
I've been trying to leave this quote alone and just can't do it. What if I not only don't "cringe" seeing two women kiss, but actually think it's really hot? Sorry, this guy brought it up.
And if Bobby "wants to play with Barbies, not Tonka trucks", what is the cause of this, um, orientation? Is it "choice" or some genetic thing?
"If religious freedom means anything," Hines said, "every denomination should choose for itself on a biblical basis what is right and wrong."
So thats religious freedom huh? In the sense of a state religion or in the sense of a religious banquet where you serve yourself up whatever and however much you want?
In the context of biblical christianity, "freedom" does not mean not paying attention to whatever you want in the bible or twisting the plain meaning of the words.
But lets play along with this Jr. lawyer and take his staeement at face value.
Lets just say that the Adventist denomination does what he says and decides that practicing homosexuality is an abomination. After that is done will that be the end of it? Will those who put a heaping helping of practicing homosexuality is fine on their plate start their own denomination where what Jason says plays out as he said it?
Dont hold your breath.
Good evening Michael,
I am not quite sure where to begin in addressing your comment. Your critique of my statement was incredibly difficult to understand, considering you make some assumptions in your critique that even the most Jr. lawyer would be savvy enough to avoid.
First, you don’t even have to be a lawyer at all to see that in context, the phrase “religious freedom” is not being used as a religious doctrine, but as an American legal concept. You don’t even have to be a Jr. lawyer (whatever that is), to realize that the principles of religious freedom that are codified in the Bill of Rights and American jurisprudence allow for separate denominations to decide moral questions for themselves as they see it in the Bible or whatever religious book they deem to be sacrosanct. Therefore, the dichotomous choice you present (either state religion or religious smorgasbord), is not really appropriate for the point that I am attempting to present. To be frank, I didn’t even really understand the choice, but maybe that’s because I’m too Jr. I trust that you’ll enlighten me. I may be wrong however. Jared may not have given you enough context to see that the argument that I’m making about religious freedom that you quoted is about political religious freedom, not spiritual religious freedom. If that is the case, blame Jared, not me.
Although I was not making the point that you so sloppily attempted to address, I’ll respond to it anyway. I am willing to say that religious freedom even in the spiritual sense does give you the freedom to pick and choose if you so desire. God has given us all this freedom. We normally refer to it as free will, or the right of conscience. In the legal realm it is referred to as the right to privacy. I’m sure as a Sr. lawyer you knew that (I assume from your remarks about me that you have extensive years of legal training and practice). I digress. What Jared did not include in his summary is the other half of that statement. While you have the freedom to follow God as you wish, you do not have freedom FROM the consequences. Therefore, God as the ultimate judge (not you or I) will decide those who have lived lives in accordance with His precepts.
So let us take my statement at face value. If the church were to make an official rule that homosexuality is an abomination, the church would be free to do so. They would also then be free to disfellowship anyone who did not want to live by that ecclesiological mandate. If they decided not to disfellowship anyone, then those who were practicing homosexuals could then decide whether or not they wanted to stay amongst the fellowship of the SDA church or whether they wanted to leave and start their own church. They would be free to do that as well. I’m not really sure why that is a bad thing.
Just for explanation’s sake – My argument is a nuanced argument, somewhat above my head as a Jr. lawyer. The argument is that the church should not be in the business of making this type of decision for the state, or even trying to influence the state towards a particular course of action. Now if the denomination wants to make a pronouncement on homosexual practice that is their right as a religion. However, they should not be attempting to make that decision for society in terms of passing legislation. In fact, it is in our self-interest as SDAs to have this stance. Furthermore, it protects the God-given right of free will for all.
BTW, was that Jr. lawyer thing supposed to be an insult? I was a Jr. lawyer at one point – when I graduated Harvard Law School at 22 and passed the Pennsylvania Bar Exam at 23.
It's too bad Andrews remains a bastion of Christian fundamentalism. Ironically, these fundamentalists use laws of nature only when they prove convenient for their arguments. If we we're to truly observe the law of nature, would we conclude that the earth was created in six literal days, that the earth and human-animal life is only six thousand years-old? Nature is a most misleading guide to construct morality. Nature randomly kills humans beings every day without selection through hurricanes, earthquakes, and other natural disasters. Nature is full of violence, carnivorous predators, and agitation.
Humans also used "nature" to justify slavery. Humans used "nature" to define who was human and not human (e.g., Jews were not humans according to the Nazi view of nature). Thus, nature is subject to different interpretations.
Jason Hines, for the win.
It also seems that Michael is assuming that there can only be one interpretation of the Bible. It would be interesting to hear how he would explain the vast variety of beliefs between the denominations, much less between religions.
Adventist bigotry knows no bounds.
Jason.
The broad strokes of Jared's piece didn't require more than broad responses.
If you look at Jared's piece what is the bold title of the section I quoted?
Religious Arguments right? And the quote I gave was the very next words in that section.
However in your clarification you said,
"First, you don’t even have to be a lawyer at all to see that in context, the phrase “religious freedom” is not being used as a religious doctrine, but as an American legal concept."
I am guessing that Jared's notes were supplemented with more than quotes from your speech.
I will take your version as the correct one since you are the author.
I considered that and that is why I asked if the statement considered “religious freedom” in the context of the state (legal aspects) or a banquet (spiritual aspects).
Since I was not there and Jared had that quote front and center under the topic Religious Arguments, I took his word for it and that is the aspect I addressed. Are you with me so far?
So lets pick it up where it gets a little interesting.
Quote
"So let us take my statement at face value. If the church were to make an official rule that homosexuality is an abomination, the church would be free to do so. They would also then be free to dis fellowship anyone who did not want to live by that ecclesiological mandate. If they decided not to disfellowship anyone, then those who were practicing homosexuals could then decide whether or not they wanted to stay amongst the fellowship of the SDA church or whether they wanted to leave and start their own church. They would be free to do that as well. I’m not really sure why that is a bad thing."
Here you perceive the question as mostly one side of the coin. The aspect that the church could decide and disfellowship anyone.
You even state, "If they decided not to disfellowship anyone, then those who were practicing homosexuals could then decide whether or not they wanted to stay amongst the fellowship of the SDA church or whether they wanted to leave and start their own church."
Why only if they decided NOT to disfellowship anyone could they THEN decide if they wanted their own church?
Why not before? Why if what you say is true does it have anything to do with the existing church? I am fairly sure people know that practicing homosexuality is not acceptable in the church. Why agitate and stir the pot? Who is trying to get who to change their position?
Where is the mindset that they know the churches position and they can agree to disagree and would appreciate the churches prayers as they venture into starting a new denomination that encompasses their beliefs?
Perhaps it's just La Nausee, Antoine?
Interesting comment Michael. It assumes so much.
Yes the legal doctrine of religious freedom was mentioned under the section pertaining to the religious argument. That's why my statement to you about understanding the terms of the debate was so prescient. If you understood the background of the phrase "religious freedom" (as I insinuated in my previous comment that you did not), then you would've understood the logical backdrop of my argument - That in dealing with the state it is the doctrine of religious freedom that allows the religion argument to even have a place. Hope you were able to follow the obvious and apparent Jr. lawyer logic there.
Now to the crux of your problem with what I said. The fact of the matter is that I consider the church's viewpoint because my argument works from the viewpoint of the church. I think it's important that you realize a simple thing called context. So in addressing the church, I address how a group could respond based on the different actions of the church. Of course homosexuals could leave beforehand if they chose. My comments do not preclude any of the possible situations that your questions raise. It is you in fact who is trying to fit me into a one-sided viewpoint, instead of me putting myself there. Notice that my quotation begins with the word "if." "If" is a word that implies certain conditions. Notice that I did not say, "only if." "Only if" would close the condition, making the church's move to disfellowship a necessary condition for the actions of homosexuals in the statement presented. Are you still with me?
It seems to me that you attacked me without really understanding what my argument is. Two suggestions if you want to have a meaningful discussion about the subject of my research: First, reread my small paragraph in my previous comment in which I explain the subject of my research. Second, I suggest you ask questions about my position before you just assume that you can attack me for ideas you think I have but about which you really have no idea.
Unbelievable. I'm speechless. I'm speechless and ashamed to be an alumnus of AU. So the act of cringing while seeing a same sex couple kissing is now a valid measure? And if someone cringes at the sight of me, a white guy, kissing my wife who is of Asian descent, then that is evidence that my mixed marriage is a violation of the natural order of things? That latter sounds an awful lot like the reaction I would expect from a white supremacist. The former is also a reaction of the same group.
Its a shame that we are giving this diatribe any attention.
The conference was a white wash.
Middle to upper class, showing off.
Adventists love a show.
Jason
I assumed nothing in my last post.
I quoted you and asked questions about it.
You put yourself exactly where I quoted you. Your quotes are IF and THEN not if and only if. I'm sure you understand the difference.
I'll leave it to you to determine your final draft.
As to your suggestion of asking questions please refer to my previous post where I asked many and received only the slightest of pertinent responses.
Not being a lawyer, I'm not sure I exactly understand "natural law," but even if animals can't be compared to humans because they do not understand morality (although many a dog-owner would disagree with that!), it seems to me there could be some basis for considering the growing list of examples of homosexual behavior in many different species of birds, animals, fish, and insects.
Michael,
I can only do this dance with you for so long, considering that you either do not understand my responses or you're just not reading them. I'll quote you to help you out -
"Why 'only if' they decided NOT to disfellowship anyone could they THEN decide if they wanted their own church?"
But I didn't say "only if." YOU said "only if." I said "if" which is different and as I said before, does not preclude the other side of the coin if you will. You assume that I preclude the other side of the coin because I did not specifically mention it. Now back to the logical statements. According to basic logical statements (something that the most Jr. Lawyer, in fact, anyone who has taken basic geometry and had to do proofs would understand) "if" statements are different from "only if" statements. Please go back and read my previous comment on that subject, I'm really not in the mood to explain the different between a condition (if) and a neccesary condition (only if) again. Please make sure you can understand the difference between your quotation and mine before you continue this discussion.
Because I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, I went back and looked at your questions. I think I addressed them as much as they needed to be addressed. You asked that sloppily crafted question about state religion and what I have termed the religious smorgasbord. I answered that by stating that it was a misguided question based on the
fact that you misunderstood my argument based on Jared's summary and your lack of knowledge of the terms being used. You asked several questions in your response to my response, which were sufficiently answered by my saying that you assumed a close-minded position on my part which I actually do not have, and that my speaking on one side of the coin did not necessarily preclude the other side of the coin which you were attempting to address.
So now we're right back where I left us at the end of my last comment. If you're interested in having an actual discussion of my research go back and read my brief synopsis of my thesis and then ask intelligible questions pertaining to what has been said. I'll even send you my paper if you want.
Once again Carrol I agree with your analysis. I don't think natural law is a good basis considering the evidence of homosexuality in nature. I think the natural law argument is essentially not that we follow the understanding of animals, but that the very nature of human beings and the differences between the sexes proves that it was intended for men and women to be together. Marriage is the societal institution that cements that relationship and therefore it should be only for those who fulfill the original naturally intended requirements.
Forgive me though, that may be how I view their position and not what it actually is.
Dear Jason,please, send me your paper to follow your argument.
My email: paslavic@mtu-net.ru
Yaroslav Paliy, pastor, Moscow Conference of SDA
Each one of us face two tensions: 1. God's intention! and 2. man's expression! The writer to the Hebrews declares that the marraige bed is undefiled. There is no Biblical inclination to treat marraige as anything but the legal union of a man and woman.
Because homosexual urges are implanted in some in a fallen and faulted world does not mean God intended such urges. How the church deals with sin and sinners seems to be the issue.
Why not a conference on alcoholism, certainly more prevalent in the church than homosexuality.
Recently our Minister of Music died of AIDS related complications. The congregation had a don't ask don't tell attitude. However, it would vigorously object to admitting a homosexual married couple into membership. It would not shun or deny fellowship outside of membership. They would be welcomed to join in worship but not in leadership.
The issue to too complex for man's judgment. We must await God's judgment. It is interesting that homosexuality is not mentioned as being outside of the Gates of the New Jerusalem. Whoremongers are.
Tom
Note this about Jefferson and his views:
"Jefferson would be against taxing people to promote a sexual agenda in which they disbelieved, as he wrote in his Draft For a Bill For Establishing Religious Freedom, 1779:
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
...
Jefferson would have hated a "hate crime" bill where the legislative powers of government censored people who held traditional Judeo-Christian religious opinions regarding sex.
Could it be that the real hate crime is about to be committed by the radical left against those who hold traditional American values?
President Reagan asked the Ecumenical Prayer Breakfast, Aug. 23, 1984:
"The frustrating thing is that those who are attacking religion claim they are doing it in the name of tolerance. ... Question: Isn't the real truth that they are intolerant of religion?"
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55479
Could it be that the real hate crime is about to be committed by the radical left against those who hold traditional American values?
Posted by: Rondo (not verified) | 22 October 2009 at 12:41
*******
Short answer is "no."
Longer answer is "Not in this Congress."
But then I guess the most satisfactory answer for you would depend on how you define "traditional American values." If such values include justifying the forced migration and murder of certain kinds of people -- then yes, the hate crimes legislation would be "against" those values. If they include the funded pursuit of justice across the country and a stance against violence, then the hate crimes legislation would be "for" those values.
The interesting thing is that both strands of values are part of this country's heritage. It's up to the people living today to choose the threads that they weave into today's America. I can understand being upset about a country seeming to pursue "the wrong thread"; I feel that way about some things in both church and society. But as a friend said to me recently, one way to cope with this state of affairs is to be completely committed to the success of your group and to be completely detached from whether it survives or falls. Help where you can; sow good where you can; leave the rest to the Owner.
Jason
Why obfuscate the subject by quoting my question? Why not answer it instead? The quote you should explain is your own since it is the basis of my question. I'll quote it again so you wont have to look it up.
"If they decided not to disfellowship anyone, then those who were practicing homosexuals could then decide whether or not they wanted to stay amongst the fellowship of the SDA church or whether they wanted to leave and start their own church."
-Jason Hines-
Should you not want to explain it that is fine and your right, however dont continue to misrepresent an easy straight forward question. The quote above is the source of my question. It is the one that contains the logic sequnce; IF, Then. Your confusion over what quote we are discussing is rather suprising since you have gone to great lengths to show your prowess.
Did I once mention discussing your research? It might be interesting but the difficulty I am currently experiencing having you explain even one quote of yours leads me to percieve that any discussion of greater complexity using this medium might be more work than either of us cares to invest.
From this year's Senate-passed hate crime legislation -- basically an appropriations bill, or a grant program limited to certain cases and conditions:
"The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem. Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive. State and local authorities are now and will continue to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the United States, including violent crimes motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal assistance. Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem. A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected."
Yes, this would have been a step forward in a number of ways for postcolonial America. We only very recently stopped lynching people.
Critics may be reassured that "solely emotional or psycho1ogical harm to the victim" is not covered by this law. Only willful physical violent acts are covered by this law.
Critics may also be reassured that first amendments rights to express "racial, religious, political, or other beliefs" are not abridged by this law. One may still believe, like Louisiana JP Bardwell, that members of different ethnic groups should not marry. Or even, like David Duke, that Zionists are corrupting the rest of the planet. Kooky beliefs are not legislated against. Violent actions against others are. As they should be.
I do sympathize with Bardwell when he says, "It's kind of hard to apologize for something that you really and truly feel down in your heart you haven't done wrong."
Bless him; I hope he comes to understand the situation he's in.
Michael,
I am not confused about what quote we are discussing, neither am I avoiding an answer to it. In fact, I have already answered your question. In fact, I've answered it twice. In addition, I have already explained why your quote is important, because it shows how you don't actually understand the statement I made and why my answer is what it already has been in two comments now. I would urge you to reread my comments and think about them. I'm fairly sure that if you do, you'll see I have answered your question more than sufficiently. I do agree with one thing you have said though. You have made it abundantly clear that a discussion of any greater complexity with you would be unfruitful. Thanks and God bless.
I don't doubt that much has been said at the conference at Andrews that reflects anti-homosexual bigotry, rather than good science, good social science, or good theology; but it would be helpful if we had some coverage of the Conference from people who weren't ideologically opposed to the goals of those organizing it. The coverage clearly is far from unbiased itself. Perhaps the fact that the conference seems only to have presented one side of the story is deemed justification enough for one-sided (mirror imaged!) coverage. Or perhaps it's assumed that the majority of readers of this website will join in the "shock, horror" response. But this (a) isn't accurate, and (b) it ends up creating a dialogue of the deaf - apparently on both sides.
To be fair to the presenters from AU, they can't really be held responsible for Zentner's sound bites nor the tenor of his presentation.
I think he had a lot of us cringing. There must have been some reason why he was invited, but I haven't been able to figure it out ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
God's Love - Our Witness
GLAdventist.org
Having convened a number of such conferences over the years, I have concluded that it is best not to discuss very controversial issues before large congregations unless there is a stong willed moderator who is able to keep things under very tight control.
By this I mean that the moderator must make it clear at the outset that all laughter, cheers, boos and amens are totally unacceptable in this discussion and that the deacons will promptly escort out of the sanctuary anyone who indulges in any of them.
There are several reasons for this which the moderator should explain at the beginning.
One of these is that a sanctuary is not a stadium. Another is that the event is a discussion of life and death issues and therefore it should be serious and solemn. Still another is that emotional outbursts do not usually enhance calm, clear thinking. A fourth is that the congreation should treat every speaker the same way.
But the fifth and most important reason is that it is very difficult for even the most disciplined scholar not to play to the audience in such circumstances.
Too often the scholar swiftly senses that he or she can get more laughs or cheers or clapping or amens by making some joke or using inflamamtory language than by sticking to the the scholary--and to most large congregations--somewhat boring presentation that he or she was asked to make. I, myself, as a presenter, know the pull of this temptation!
Although I was not there, from a distance it sounds to me that on occasion this might have taken place at the Andrews conference. Someone was invited to make a scholarly presentation; however, the mood of the congregation unfortunately and unexpectedly swept him or her into gutter-talk.
I don't think that we can be too severe on the organizers of the conference for this because I doubt that this is what they requested or anticipated.
Yet next time around they might choose to discuss these things in smaller more carefully selected groups or have moderators who are as strict and fearsome [mean?] as I can be!
One other thing: When I was a student in an ecumenical theological seminary, I was taught that a clergy person changes more minds in congregations when he or she invites the best spokespersons from each of the contending sides to make presentations.
My seminarian colleagues and I were taught this in the middle of the Viet Nam war which most of us opposed.
Over the years I have found this to be the case too. What usually occurs in such exchanges is that a consensus "in the middle" begins to emerge and the ideas of the extremists on both ends of the continuum are gently nudged aside.
One can actually see the Holy Spirit at work!
So, literally, there are spiritual and pragmatic as well as academic reasons for featuring more than one point of view.
"Studies show the best environment for rearing children is a stable marriage between a man and a woman."
If the church shaped its public policy initiatives in light of this research, we would attack heterosexual divorce instead of opposing homosexual unions. . . .
Vastly greater numbers of children are affected by heterosexual divorce than by homosexual unions.
If the church shaped its public policy initiatives in light of this research, we would attack heterosexual divorce instead of opposing homosexual unions. . . .
Vastly greater numbers of children are affected by heterosexual divorce than by homosexual unions.
Posted by: John McLarty (not verified) | 22 October 2009 at 9:44
So since divorce is not handled as correctly as the bible advises we are to let practicing homosexuality slide which is also condemned in the bible?
Interesting humanology.
The biblical theology of "neither" becomes "instead of".
Michael,
I won't speak for John McLarty but I think what he is showing is that the justifications given for opposing gay marriage are inconsistent. They may sound fine in isolation but when we compare them, both to reality and to what we value and how we act in other areas, they fall flat.
In other words, we may think that we are helping children and supporting healthy hetero marriage by opposing gay marriage. But we really aren't helping children by supporting hetero marriage very much because we aren't doing what would logically do more to support hetero marriage like Biblically banning divorce (assuming banning things is a good way to promote hetero marriage.)
We look at the Biblical reasons given for divorce and then say, "That's all fine and good but I'm sure Jesus really meant in cases of abuse too, and in cases where it is just too emotionally destructive to continue, and of course it is better for the children to not be a part of such destructive relationships etc." We justify doing something different then the Bible allows because we think that it is in keeping with the understanding that God is a God of love and He wouldn't want victims being beat up (which still doesn't explain why the church sanctions divorce over separation but whatever.) God could have easily listed abuse as one of the justified reasons for divorce. He didn't. What are we to make of that?
There is strong, inconsistent hypocrisy going on in the reasoning given against gay marriage and it is quite reasonable to point it out.
The reasons against Gay Marriage are simple.
If gays married they would
(a) be entitled to various medical and legal recourses that cost money
(b) get tax deductions that they don't currently get
So they would pay less and get more from society.
Of course the SDA church should continue backing the State taking more money from them and providing less services for them - otherwise I'd have to pay more and get less.
Of course the SDA church should continuing backin the State in robbing gays.
Of course the SDA church should encourage the violation of "thou shalt not steal"
/Bevin
I certainly agree and support the statutes that speak to the Right of Privacy, Property Rights, and other civil rights of homosexual citizens.
I also agree that non governmental institutions have the right to define the standards required for voting membership.
I don't agree that active church membership is a criteria for redemption.
I do believe that persisting in open sin is an abomination--however, it is God not the Church that defines such sin.
Thus I have difficulty understanding the passion of homosexuals attempting to gain membership in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. What do they gain by such endorsement if, at best, grudgingly given. Tom
Beth
I accept the point on divorce. I understand the argument. I'm saying it isn't a very good one. In fact its juvenile. A form of reasoning heard on playgrounds.
One cannot say a lack of attention in one area calls for an equal lack of attention in another.
Rationalization and self justification of what one thinks is not a positive reason for change.
Try justifying practicing homosexuality as Gods plan. Prove it in the positive. It cant be done.
"Try justifying practicing homosexuality as Gods plan. Prove it in the positive. It cant be done."
I disagree. I think it can (just like we can justify divorce in abuse cases) as follows:
Jesus said that the most important commandment is to love God and love each other. Everything must be weighed against this commandment. We must ask if every doctrine, every Biblical saying, everything fits into this.
We do this process already, having tossed all sorts of Biblical sayings and commandments as being either illogical (don't mix fabrics or braid hair), immoral due to violating that overall commandment (slavery, genocide, and many would say submission for women) or both (women being unclean while menstruating.) We understand God as being a God of love and ergo, God does not want us to act in unloving ways.
Is it unloving to deny same sex marriage? I think it is for quite a few reasons that have been discussed at length elsewhere. There are no really good arguments against it except for the Biblical argument which I believe is trumped by Jesus' overall commandment - just like we think it is more loving to allow battered women to be able to divorce.
You might not agree but I don't think you can say there is no way of justifying it as part of God's plan. It is very much a part of God's overall plan of love.
I know you might think this is just picking and choosing which of God's commandments we like but I don't see it that way at all. It is easier to keep lesser commandments than it is to be loving in all ways. It is quite easy to expound on sin for other people, especially when not tempted in that area. There are all sorts of things God asks of us that aren't easy because they require us to get over ourselves. Being loving is foremost among them.
Uganda Civil Rights Coalition Denounces Anti-Homosexuality Bill
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/10/23/15873
"The coalition points out eight specific constitutional articles which the proposed bill violates, and a long list of people who would be put at risk of serious criminal penalties should the bill pass. This list includes not only LGBT people themselves, but also parents, teachers, landlords, doctors, human rights activists, religious counselors, publishers, and even Internet cafe operators.
The proposed bill would:
• Reaffirm the lifetime sentence currently provided upon conviction of homosexuality, and extends the definition from sexual activity to merely “touch[ing] another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality.”
• Create a new category of “aggravated homosexuality” which provides for the death penalty for “repeat offenders” and for cases where the individual is HIV-positive.
• Criminalizes all speech and peaceful assembly for those who advocate on behalf of LGBT citizens in Uganda with fines and imprisonment of between five and seven years.
• Criminalizes the act of obtaining a same-sex marriage abroad with lifetime imprisonment.
• Adds a clause which forces friends or family members to report LGBT persons to police within 24-hours of learning about that individual’s homosexuality or face fines or imprisonment of up to three years.
• Adds an extra-territorial and extradition provisions, allowing Uganda to prosecute LGBT Ugandans living abroad."
From Wikipedia: "Muslin traders and Christian missionaries first arrived in the 1860s, attempting to convert the Ugandan king. Only 1% of Uganda's population follow tradional religions. More than 50% of Uganda is Christian. According to the National Census of October 2002, Christians of all denominations made up 85.1% of Uganda's population. The Catholic Church has the largest number of adherents (41.9% of the total population), followed by the Anglican church of Uganda, a part of the worldwide Anglican communion (35.9%). Minor Christian groups include Pentecostals (4.6%) and Seventh-Day Adventists (1.5%), while 1.0% were grouped under the category 'Other Christians.'"
Would the Seventh-day Adventist church be an advocate for this law? Why? Why not?
What would this advocacy involve? Either for or against this law?
Is there a Christian response to this? Why? Why not?
Should Seventh-day Adventists in the United States be even concerned about this? Why? Why not?
What is the probability that the provisions of this law were/are inspired from the book of Leviticus? Zero? If not zero, what might that probability be?
How would sin be defined in this situation?
Is there a question as to just who might the sinner(s) be?
Why would anyone in their right mind in Uganda "choose" to be homosexual?
If your son or daughter came out to you, a Ugandan parent, would you report that incident to the police? Why? Why not?
If a member of a Seventh-day Adventist congregation in Uganda is "found out to be homosexual," would/should that church turn the suspect person in to the police? Why? Why not?
Should the President of Andrews University, hearing that a student, a national of Uganda, was suspect of being homosexual, be reported to US Immigration for deportation in compliance with this proposed Uganda law?
What does "hate the sin, love the sinner" really mean?
Sin's sin.
Just a former SDA, gay, out, and a seeker of trying to figure out where the boundaries of hypocrisy might lie. Sure wouldn't want to cross that line. . . may be even worse than being gay.
Kenneth James
Beth
I do know the arguement you are making. It is a form of reductionism which hyperaccentuates a certain principal as a way of making the others of no effect in comparison.
I have not had time to read both these threads but I thank Jared for his overview and especially for using the term "same gender marriage".
This is the only accurate term that can be used in this context because there are and have for an eternity been same sex marriages that appeared to be same gender marriages. Biological sex is not bianary, chomosomes do not always dictate genetic phenotype much less gender expression or identity.
Thanks again for a terrific overview of the conference.
Given that things may have calmed a bit, I take the opportunity to address some of the comments here regarding the recent conference on marriage at Andrews University. Presumably the papers written for the conference, including my own, will appear in published form at a later date. Readers can get the unfiltered and undistorted argument there. However, it may be helpful to honest readers for me to provide some general philosophical background to this discussion. The following comment may be understood as a more general introduction to my paper.
The broadest underlying question here is: What should be the basis of society’s laws, if not mere accident or force? There really are only three general options: some kind of divine law, some kind of natural law, or some human law alone. If we assume that divine law is not an option, which I think is the assumption of most Adventists, then we are left with either natural law or human law. My guess is that the critics of any kind of natural law position assume that human law alone is sufficient. I think reason and common sense suggest, however, that this is not the case.
One can, of course, attempt to ground the law in reason without appeal to natural or divine standards. Some very famous men tried to do this. I think they all failed, however noble or ignoble their efforts may have been. Let me explain, very briefly, why this was so.
Utilitarian thinkers of various stripes have appealed to mere self-interest as a ground for law. But such arguments ultimately fail because they provide no real reason why someone should obey the law if he can get away with violating it in order to serve his own interest. In other words, what is necessary is a reasoned account of the good which can guide the will.
Kant thought he found the answer in what he called the “good” will, which he described as a will that could be made universal (with the universal more or less equated with the rational). One should not steal, for example, since if everyone were to steal, property would not be secure.
But Hegel criticized Kant for not explaining adequately why property was worthwhile in the first place. Kant’s formal view had to give way to some substantive standard. Hegel answered this problem by turning to history, the idea that laws and customs over time necessarily lead to a certain arrangement that is satisfying to the rational mind. This is the idea of progress, which assumes that the arrangement at the end of history is good and that what came before was bad.
However, there is a basic problem with the idea of progress: one cannot know what constitutes progress since one cannot know when or if history has ended, one cannot be certain that the current arrangement is rationally satisfying. For example, Karl Marx’s history ends in communist utopia, while Hegel’s ends in the constitutional state. The appeal to progress did not really provide the substantive content that was lacking in Kant’s theory.
But this was bound to be the case because the evolving laws and customs upon which progressivism is based are themselves just the result of the collective wills of the various societies that have existed. This observation was the source of Nietzsche’s famous claim that God is dead: man now sees that there is no divine or natural law that can serve as the guide for his will. In other words, human law without divine or natural guidance has no basis in anything other than accident or force.
Not surprisingly, we now find ourselves in the age of “post modernism” or nihilism. Any notion of a natural order, such as I have proffered, is derided as mere interpretation or prejudice or stereotyping. But our blindness to nature is just the result of our having been systematically taught how not to think. Nietzsche went nuts, I think, because he assumed that God had died. Judging by many of the mindless comments on sites like this, it is hard not to conclude that our society as a whole is heading down a similar path.
Witness our arguments over the most rudimentary of things, including the definition of marriage. We seem unable to apprehend the meaning of evident phenomena, such as the fact that men and women are different by nature in certain significant ways and, therefore, ought to be taught different virtues. But it is just as evident that those virtues complement each other and so marriage comes to sight as the institution through which men and women, in pairs, find their natural flourishing and happiness. Not surprisingly, traditional marriage also appears to be the naturally best means for the raising of children.
Philosophers and ordinary folks through the ages have seen these things. And modern brain science backs up the traditional understanding of the differences between the sexes. But because of the pervasive influence of nihilism, even seemingly educated people today appear to be incapable of following the most basic of arguments.
This is why someone like me, who merely recounts those arguments, appears to many to be an alien being spouting nonsensical ideas. So, for example, when I point out the fact that many people seem to cringe more at two men kissing than they do at two women kissing, critics only hear a claim that right and wrong should be derived merely from what makes people cringe. The critics, steeped in the teaching that all moral claims are only assertions of opinion or will, only hear something contrary to their own opinion or will.
But the point, of course, was to ask the audience to think about the evident fact that we, like almost all human beings everywhere, expect different things from men and women. Such observations are not meant to be dispositive, but they are the beginning point of any understanding of the right or the good by nature. If it is the case, as it seems to be, that public happiness requires a generalized teaching of separate but complementary roles for men and women, which roles are actualized primarily in the traditional family, then the public sanction of same-sex marriage would evidently be bad policy.
We are trying to discern human purposes from human nature. It will not do to say that because we cannot know such things with absolute certainty, that any appeal to natural standards is wrong. Indeed, the point of turning to nature is precisely that it requires us to look beyond our own unfettered will our standard. Radical doubt can undermine any enterprise, but it can also justify any enterprise. Nietzsche noted that since nothing is true, everything is permitted. Once we realize that such radical doubt is merely the offspring of nihilism, we can proceed to go about making reasoned arguments about the nature of things and our place within it.
Scot, it seems to me that your argument against same gender marriage lies in what seems obvious to you, and accepted by most, that men and women are different. Scientists have done somersaults and twisted themselves into pretzels showing that men and women have different brains, different strengths and different weaknesses. These are not surprising because the scientists are looking to classify their data in a binary that they have pre-selected. If we were to put all people who show ability to nurture children into one group and those who do not into another, you would see people of both genders and various ages, races, cultural backgrounds, languages and other anthropological categories. Choosing their gender to analyze the data pre ordains the answer though you could just as easy use the data to prove that people of Latino descent have greater natural nurturing abilities than people of northern European descent.
We are more different, one individual to the next, than all men and all women compared in huge statistical samples. Marriage is a contract that two people negotiate in order to fulfill their mutual love. They have the freedom to negotiate in their own families which roles are played by people involved.
As I stated in my earlier post, Sex chromosomes do not dictate sexual phenotype for a substantial minority. Chromosomes don’t dictate gender identity and roles either. We live in a world where we have science and reason to use as tools to eschew outmoded ideas and create more humane laws based on our progression as humans in a new understanding of what being human is, biologically, sociologically philosophically and psychologically.
If one wants to talk of "natural law" there is a law that is one of the oldest, found in dozens of tribes and cultures. The Bible calls it the "Golden Rule" but long before it was recorded in the Bible, it was found in dozens of other cultures. It is simple, plain, direct, and sparse, but leaves nothing to interpretation:
"Do unto others as you wish to have done to you." If each person wants the freedom to choose who he will share his life and love, unless you do not want that for yourself, why would you deny it to someone else? Does anyone wish to have the state, the government, or the church to dictate who one's lifetime companion should be?
Unless he or she is willing to concede that choice to others, it is hypocritical to want to make that choice for others. It is the most personal choice that a person can ever make, and since it is so extremely important and personal, who would dare to attempt to choose that for another? It is a mutual choice between to people which no other person has the right to intrude upon. Unless, those who would so willingly play god, and those who would so callously attempt to do so, they have rushed in as fools where angels should fear to tread.
Scot, I felt that you were the most chauvinistic of all the presenters at the conference. Why do you cringe more at the idea of two men making love than two women? Is it not because you see male superiority being degraded when one of them takes the role of a woman? Is it not because women are inferior, so it doesn't matter as much what they do? I think that's what is really behind the "cringe factor."
Scot's interpretation and application of Natural Law is the most bizarre case of logic gone awry that I have ever seen.
To Carlitas:
You have simply repeated the view that I criticized in my post. You appeal to a "progression" without specifying in what the progress consists. This is why you simply assert that marriage is just a negotiation between two people in "love." Marriage in Western civilization has never been thought of this way because, strictly speaking, there is nothing to your definition. Again, your view is just an expression of nihilist individuality. However, if you were to articulate concretely what the human nature is that is revealed by the new science to which you refer, and if on this basis you were to attempt to articulate a moral argument, then you, in fact, would be making a natural law or natural right argument.
Now you are correct to point out that all science proceeds on the basis of a prescientific understanding of the world. This is why in my paper I only spend one paragraph referring to the voluminous contemporary scientific literature supporting the traditional view. But this is only to say that we need not appeal to the authority of scientists, any more than the authority of priests, to understand moral phenomena.
The problem with your view is that you think that any doubt whatsoever about the certainty of our prescientific constructs undermines our ability to reason about the world. That is, to use methodological parlance, for you the problem of "construct validity" is absolute. This reflects the correspondence between your view and that of the "deconstructionists" and other post-moderns who don't think anything meaningful can be said about the world. This is why you are led to say, or at least to imply, that there is no common reality to which we can refer, that we are left in our own private, individual caves. This is, in a nutshell, Nietzsche's view.
To those other than "Carlitas" who have responded to my initial post:
Simply saying or implying that I am "hypocritical" or a "chauvinist" or making "bizarre" arguments will not do. I could simply insult you in turn, but I'm a gentleman and won't do that. If you refrain from the ad hominem attacks and actually make an argument that goes to the point, perhaps I can respond. My objective here is to try to educate those reading who may be educable.
Scot,
You are putting words in my mouth and widly distorting my words and views. I am not a social scientist so am not ready to go point by point on nhileism, constructionist and post constructionist, and especially unfamiliar with Nietzche's veiws.
Having said that. My definition of progressiveism is to take what science says (I speak mostly of biology since I understand it best); and apply it to current moral and political questions. This in no way dismisses historical ideas about the worth of the human, the importance of living together in harmony and for social rules that keep us thriving in a reasonably harmonious society.
I know of no other person who understands more about the importance of helping others since I was born and raised on an SDA medical mission in Angola. I still support the idea of helping people with health and education, but I go further to believe that this should be done just because it is right, not because it may bring people into the fold. I can most closely be edentified as a secular humanist. I believe that the good of people should be our highest priority and that secular means are the most egalitarian way to bring these dreams to past. For a traditionalist, the common good is protedcted by conserving traditional social values, even when they don't really make sense in the modern context.
Pre-scentific societies had a good handle on what was good for their societies and we can learn a great deal from them. Trusting progressive ideas does not mean throwing out traditional views. Progressive ideas don't necissarily lead to Nihlism as you claim, unless that is the goal of a specific progressive.
You also misinterpreted my views on family and marriage. I did not suggest that marriage was only about love. I believe the best way to understand marriage in the US is that it is about a a civil contract between that people enter into and is a very personal decision. It is not required, even for bringing up healthy families nor should it be limited because of popular public opinions.
You have a point about the ad hominum attacks on your presentation because people were mis-representing what you were trying to say. In this case that is exactly what you were doing to me; except you never called me a chauvanist, which was very nice.
I am passionate about this subject because I have a horse in the race. I am in what externally looks like a lesbian relationship. We are committed as much as any opposite gendered couple may be, we run a household together, my parnter is supporting me through school and we have a de-facto marriage. The only thing we don't have is a legal marriage, one that provides us the rights that even Brittany Spears enjoyed after a drunken ceremony in Las Vegas.
Carlitas:
Unfortunately, you have not addressed the problems in your view that I highlighted. The dramatic story of the 20th century centers on the collapse of the idea of progress as a meaningful category of thought. The great wars (predicted by Nietzsche), the rise of existentialism, the demise of social institutions such as the family, the decay of social mores, etc., are all signs of this collapse. You don't need to read Spengler to see these things. Blithely appealing to "progress" does not invest the word with meaning or persuasiveness.
Your definition of marriage exhibits the problem. Your initial statement was that: "Marriage is a contract that two people negotiate in order to fulfill their mutual love." This is not what marriage has ever been, until very recently, in Western civilization. Your amended statement in your last message does not address your error: marriage is not a mere contract between individuals. It is, rather, a social and legal institution with specific moral and political purposes, namely, the channeling of sexual conduct to appropriate ends, the raising of children to be citizens of the regime, and the sharing of the goods of life (such goods including the children) between naturally complementary persons (i.e., a man and a woman). Your definition drains it of this content.
Your reference to Spears only highlights that the unwritten laws of society, particularly the public shame following inappropriate activity, have, as I said, declined. Indeed, as I explain in my paper, marriage as a public institution has in large measure already disappeared (caused by sexual promiscuity, no fault divorce laws, nonsensical child custody rules, and, most importantly, the obscuring of the separate roles of men and women, both in and out of the family).
Indeed, same-sex marriage has only become plausible to the extent that marriage as a practical matter has ceased to exist. Same-sex marriage advocates likely will win the debate, but it can only be a Pyrrhic victory.
The Conference did not take in consideration that:
•Homosexuality is not about sex (only)– it’s about love.
•Sinners don’t long to come out in the open and confess publicly their sins. On the contrary, they want to hide it as much as possible from public knowledge. Homosexuals have a deep desire to “come out” and alleviate their pain and suffering, but are afraid of not being understood and accepted.
•Homosexuality is not only an attraction to the same sex, it’s a repulsion for the opposite sex. The same repulsion a heterosexual feels towards other people of the same sex.
•There are other possible interpretations of the texts about homosexuality.
•If the Genesis account establishes that men was made to be with women and vice versa, and that this is the natural way of being, as commanded by God himself, why does the Church supports singles and don’t condemn them for not following God’s orientation?
•"Plain” sinners don’t identify themselves as being that sin. Our sins don’t characterize who we are. Homosexuality is what a person is. It has not been proven that he/she can avoid being that, the same way that I can’t avoid being a heterosexual person. I can, if I want, engage in same sex sexual experiences, but that alone will not make me a homosexual.
•It’s very misleading to talk about homosexuality as being a sin without having a clear understanding of its real nature.
•Panelists were interpreting some Bible verses at their “face value” and others they were interpreting within their cultural and historical context.
•Recognize that I Tim. 1:10 – “arsenokoitai” was never used by Clement of Alexandria and also by John Chysostom in their diserssions of same-sex behavior. It seems that they cite it when presenting the list of sins described in I Cor. 9-10, but not where they discuss homosexuality. Also, lists tend to group categories. “Malokai” is in between male prostitutes and thieves. “arsenokoitai” is in between fornication and slave traders. This should tell us something…
•Deut 29:23, 32:32; Isa 1:9-17, 3:9, 13:19; Jer 23:14, 49:18; Lam 4:6; Ezeq. 16:46-56; Amos 4:1 and Zeph 2:9 all talk about the sins of Sodom. None mentions homosexuality as being its sin.
•Every sin has a name. For many years many homosexuals don’t know what to call what they “have”, the feelings that they are experiencing until they finally find out that what they are has a name.
•People who are trying to overcome their sins of selfishness, adultery, jealousy , pride, etc. don’t commit suicide in the process, but homosexuals do.
OBAMA LOVES HATE BILL
Go ahead, Mr. President. Sign the "hate" bill. By doing so you will help to fulfill the predicted repeat of the "days of Lot" in Luke 17 - days which today seem anxious to outperform their ancient counterparts! You have already been helping to fulfill the predicted repeat of the "days of Noah" in the same chapter - that is, violence towards the unborn which presently is matching, if not surpassing, the violence that forced God in Genesis 6 to announce that He would soon destroy everyone except Noah and his family. Mr. President, by helping to fulfill both of the above "days" you will discover that God has His Almighty veto over what you say and do!
[the above was just seen by me on the internet]
My Uncle Raymond, while declining fervent requests to participate in heated theological debate, would wisely say: "When we all get to Heaven, I'm sure God will explain it to us."
I love it when Miller says it's all about the kids stupid. Well stupid, how many kids in a heterosexual marraige have been trashed and how many women in a heterosexual marraige have been brutually beaten up or killed. Look at our prisons and see how many men are there for the abuse they have committed on their families. You are comparing apples to apples when you talk about abuse the and probability of problems for their children in homosexual relationships. I would venture to say the abuse and problems with their children is far less than with heterosexuals. All these people want is to be loved like anyone else. Jesus never speaks of homosexuality in the bible, ever!! Homosexuality is brought up in only six scriptures. It is true that God's plan was for a man and a woman to be together in the beginning when the world was created, but then sin entered in. Also, you need to go back to the Hebrew written words to know what was really said in the Bible. The Bible was re-written - by MAN, and we all know MAN in his translation can make errors!
I need to add another thing.
Too many homosexual people commit suicide because the church and their familie do not accept them. Families reject their own children. Young people feel sucide is their only escape. Jesus said love all my people. If we are truly Christian people, we are not to pick and choose who we love. We are to truly love all His people and accept them the way they are. Jesus is the judge of all, we are not. The Mormon Church was the driving force to change proposition 8 in California and got the Catholic church involved. After doing that, many young people commited sucide at BrigamYoung Univ. Watch the documentary 8:Morman Proposition. Does the Adventist Church want to be the same? Open your God Loving heart. Be a Christian and do as Jesus commanded us to do. Love all His people!!
I need to add another thing.
Too many homosexual people commit suicide because the church and their familie do not accept them. Families reject their own children. Young people feel sucide is their only escape. Jesus said love all my people. If we are truly Christian people, we are not to pick and choose who we love. We are to truly love all His people and accept them the way they are. Jesus is the judge of all, we are not. The Mormon Church was the driving force to change proposition 8 in California and got the Catholic church involved. After doing that, many young people commited sucide at BrigamYoung Univ. Watch the documentary 8:Morman Proposition. Does the Adventist Church want to be the same? Open your God Loving heart. Be a Christian and do as Jesus commanded us to do. Love all His people!!
Post new comment