Sigh ... I wish both sides would think, or inquire if they lack that capacity, about the meaning and implication of Scriptural texts.
One would also have to consider the argument in light of the whole – what does Scripture say about heterosexuality? What does Scripture say about paedophilia, for example, remembering that the 'age of consent' in the biblical era is certainly younger than the 'age of consent' today? Were the ancients then paedophiles?
Following the Moslem Tradition, it would appear that Mary was married to a man old enough to be her grandfather ... how does modern society sit with that one ... (bearing in mind that, to within a generation, one solution to the teenage pregnancy problem was the lunatic asylum)?
I address the question this way:
Is man or woman defined by their sexual orientation?
Put another way, are men and women subject – that is hostage – to their sexual orientation? I that all they are ... rutting creatures?
I put it that way because, for me, as a heterosexual onlooker with homosexual friends, the current 'gay' debate is not so much about the acceptance of sexual difference, but rather that whatever one's sexual orientation, this should be the primary activity that marks one as an individual, and one should be free, if not lauded for it.
So a 'gay pride' march becomes something of a showcase for the diversity of human fantasy, infatuation and fetishism ... am I supposed to applaud this triumph of the basest expression of humanity?
The statement becomes not "I am a man and I am homosexual" but rather "I am a homosexual man," or equally, "I am a man who is heterosexual" but "I am a heterosexual man".
Recalling that the Christian Way is, above all, one of continence, then the scriptural proscriptians against sexual activity – and Jesus demanded a degree of continence in his heterosexual audience that even the saints have trouble with – was not so much the act but against the idea that the act comprises all that the person is.
It matters not whether one is homosexual or heterosexual, if one proclaims a sexual orientation as a virtue, as something to be proud of, if your sexual orientation defines all that you are ... then one might ask what differentiates man from the animals.
The question is important, and the 'gay issue' is important, because in this western culture of ours, since the 'swinging 60s', such a view of sexual orientation and activity is increasingly regarded as a good and as a primary aspect of the human condition.
Think of the billions, the trillions, of dollars spent on cosmetics, on fashion, on looking and feeling good, on cultivating a self image that is absolutely, entirely and utterly superficial, whilst thousands die daily for want of fresh water – many reduced to such straits to maintain that flow of 'goods' to the west, and one can begin to put the question into perspective, it's the tip of an iceberg that might just 'Titanic' this culture – gut it just like that other one gutted that 'unsinkable' ship.
In closing:
I have friends who are homosexual, but you'd never know it; I have friends who are somewhat 'effeminate' but who are heterosexual ... they are in the Church, and it is my hope, and theirs, that they will see paradise ... I see no reason why I should condemn them.
But I have no respect for anyone, regardless of their inclination or orientation, who wears it as some kind of badge of merit.
I am not saying one should not be who one is, I am saying that the active promotion of one aspect of one's being throws the whole thing out of kilter ... and culture goes with it.
Historically and anthropologically such signs as this debate throws up, if the debate stays at the superficial level, is an indication of the immanent demise of culture and its collapse into self-loathing.
Thomas
(hetro's) None of you are perfect they may comitt acts of a homosexual nature, and on the other hand there is you..... comitting some sin/crime... You are both equal in that, you both also owe a life..... Which you both will have to pay.