Gay Rights

[Dannyalcatraz]

Sure. But ignorance is never an acceptable excuse for any form of -ism or similar behaviour. It just isn't. And such obnoxious behaviour - unlike homosexuality - actually is a choice, and choosing to say such things is a choice. One can't necessarily control how one feels, but one can control what one says.

Which brings up an interesting fact about certain branches of Christianity. I guarantee you that you can find gay clergy in the Catholic, Anglican and Episcopal churches, despite the supposed "sinfulness" of homosexuality.* This is because, unlike many of the evangelical branches, there is a stronger distinction between sinner and sin.

IOW, they condemn the behavior, not the person.

So a gay priest or nun is perfectly acceptable, as long as they adhere to the same vows of chastity and celibacy, etc. as their heterosexual brethren and sisters in the clergy. Convincing them the same standard should apply to vows of marriage, OTOH, is probably going to take generations.












* I cannot speak to the psychology of said individuals. How they can separate their sexual orientation from their identity is baffling to me. Orwell would smile at the doublethink involved.

 

[Umbran]

I believe the equal protection clause applies because the gay marriage is official in another state.

That holds for recognition of marriage performed in another state. If you accept the validity of a hetero marriage from Massachusetts, you have to accept all the marriages from Massachusetts.

However, the argument for whether your own state offers such marriages isn't based on what goes on in other states. You, in your own state, offer a legal option to a pair of people - you don't get to pick and choose which people, without clear governmental needs.

Which is to say - if you strip off the initial "marriage is between a man and a woman" from marriage laws, you find that they are otherwise gender neutral. The legal rights and responsibilities of married people are not gender-dependent! Thus, they can just as easily apply to any pair of people, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. That's "equal protection".

 

[Umbran]

Sure. But ignorance is never an acceptable excuse for any form of -ism or similar behaviour.

I dunno. I think if you came from a culture that didn't have the evidence we do, I'd cut a bit of slack until such time as they can be properly informed. This goes hand-in-hand with another concept - it is not a character flaw to fail to be ahead of your times. It is a great thing if you are ahead of your times, a leader of new, better ideas. But there's no shame to not figuring it all out yourself.

*Willful* ignorance is never an acceptable excuse. If you have one source or factual information, and one source of unfounded belief, and you choose the wrong one, that's on you.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Which is why the case hinged on answers 2 questions: whether states had to recognize ceremonies from other sovereigns, and whether marriage was truly a fundamental constitutional right.

Now, they only asked about other states, but the same issue also arises from ceremonies performed in other countries. The FF&C/Equal protection arguments could have been decided to apply ONLY marriages performed within the territories of the USA. By making marriage a constitutional right, that means that not only are states not allowed to outlaw and must allow gay marriages, they also have to recognize those performed in other countries.

 

[Umbran]

Which brings up an interesting fact about certain branches of Christianity. I guarantee you that you can find gay clergy in the Catholic, Anglican and Episcopal churches, despite the supposed "sinfulness" of homosexuality.*

As I understand it, for the Catholic church, having homosexual *feelings* is not itself a sin. Homosexual *actions* are sinful.

* I cannot speak to the psychology of said individuals. How they can separate their sexual orientation from their identity is baffling to me.

They don't have to, due to the above. Their orientation is not itself sinful. And, it isn't like they are the only ones in such a state. *Everyone* has thoughts that might lead them to sin. *Everyone* has challenges. I mean, the guy who thinks about adultery? He's in about the same boat - committing adultery is a mortal sin, too.

Having challenges to overcome to avoid sin is the basic human condition. That's okay. Just don't give in to them.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As I understand it, for the Catholic church, having homosexual *feelings* is not itself a sin. Homosexual *actions* are sinful.

Exactly.

They don't have to, due to the above. Their orientation is not itself sinful. And, it isn't like they are the only ones in such a state. *Everyone* has thoughts that might lead them to sin. *Everyone* has challenges. I mean, the guy who thinks about adultery? He's in about the same boat - committing adultery is a mortal sin, too.

Having challenges to overcome to avoid sin is the basic human condition. That's okay. Just don't give in to them.

Yes. And Catholicism is all about recognizing what we'd WANT to do, and modifying our behavior so that we don't neccessarily act on those desires.

BUT*...if you accept that one's sexual orientation is essentially as immutable as one's hair color or height, you still have a psychological doublethink issue: imagine being told "Being a redhead is not sinful, but ACTING like a redhead is." "Don't act tall- behaving with tallness is a sin." It has to be very difficult to compartmentalize a part of yourself off like that.





* Yes, that is a big but.

 

[Umbran]

BUT*...if you accept that one's sexual orientation is essentially as immutable as one's hair color or height, you still have a psychological doublethink issue: imagine being told "Being a redhead is not sinful, but ACTING like a redhead is." "Don't act tall- behaving with tallness is a sin." It has to be very difficult to compartmentalize a part of yourself off like that.

I can imagine at least one way to view it that doesn't involve doublethink. And it comes out of the Catholic Catechism on the subject. It speaks of the orientation as being a challenge for many people.

Replace the term "homosexual" with "alcoholic" for a moment. In a medical sense, being an alcoholic or addict is not a choice. It is a fact of your neurochemistry. And, you face a challenge every day, to not give in to the desires that neurochemistry instills in you. I don't see as a recovering addict has to doublethink to compartmentalize. He or she knows she has a problem that presents strong desires to be resisted. It doesn't make you a bad person.

That is, however, just my imagining of how it might work out. It isn't like I've spoken with a member of the clergy about it.

 

[MechaPilot]

Replace the term "homosexual" with "alcoholic" for a moment. In a medical sense, being an alcoholic or addict is not a choice. It is a fact of your neurochemistry. And, you face a challenge every day, to not give in to the desires that neurochemistry instills in you. I don't see as a recovering addict has to doublethink to compartmentalize. He or she knows she has a problem that presents strong desires to be resisted. It doesn't make you a bad person.

I think you're, willingly or not, ignoring the inherent choice in alcoholism: you cannot be an alcoholic without having consumed alcohol (presumably voluntarily), though you could have a genetic predisposition toward addiction. However, having the genetic predisposition doesn't make one an alcoholic or give one the desire to drink that needs to be resisted.

 

[trappedslider]

As I understand it, for the Catholic church, having homosexual *feelings* is not itself a sin. Homosexual *actions* are sinful.

This is exactly how The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints views it.

 

[tomBitonti]

As I understand it, for the Catholic church, having homosexual *feelings* is not itself a sin. Homosexual *actions* are sinful.

I'm thinking it's not quite that simple:

16Come and hear, all you who fear God;
let me tell you what he has done for me.
17I cried out to him with my mouth;
his praise was on my tongue.
18If I had cherished sin in my heart,
the Lord would not have listened;
19but God has surely listened
and has heard my prayer.
20Praise be to God,
who has not rejected my prayer
or withheld his love from me!

(One translation; see http://biblehub.com/niv/psalms/66.htm.)

I don't know if thinking a sinful thought is a sin, but I expect it would be counseled against.

I also expect that there are many many different ways to read the above, and that this is an area that folks who study religion would specifically study. I'm not one of those folks, so I offer this as an impression, having been raised as a Roman Catholic.

Thx!

TomB