Equal Voices is a movement of Australian Christians, focusing specifically on the relationship between Christians and “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ+) realities and experience,” calling itself “a non-judgmental, non-denominational, ecumenical body…who seek to work for reconciliation and to equip LGBTIQ+ people and their friends and advocates to bring into being a truly inclusive and welcoming Australian church.”
This is the apology it has issued on its website and invited members to sign. It is a Level #1 apology*, but but more than that, a sensitive and thoughtful starting point for reconsideration of the ethical issues involved. Here it is…
An apology to my LGBTIQ+ friends, and to all who have been adversely affected by the teachings and behaviour of Christians and their churches
Considering the ways in which you have been hurt by me, and by other Christians and churches, I ask for your forgiveness:
- For being too slow to acknowledge that we need to say sorry to you;
- For not speaking up against the damaging, isolating, and often violent mistreatment you have been subjected to;
- For speaking about you, without first listening to you;
- For not creating safe environments within our churches where people can speak openly and honestly about their struggles and understandings;
- For perpetuating stereotypes, and for not taking full account of your actual lived experiences;
- For talking to you or about you in such a way as to suggest that sexual and gender differences are not part of your true identity as humans made in the image of God;
- For perpetuating the mistaken belief that sexual orientation and gender identity should be treated, healed or changed;
- For rejecting and harming people with intersex variations because we fail to understand or accept your non-binary biological sex characteristics;
- For not acknowledging that Christians who are seeking to be faithful to their Lord and to the Scriptures are coming to different conclusions on matters of gender, sexual orientation, non-binary biological sex, and marriage.
I commit myself to:
1. Honour and support you in every way I can;
2. Be open to your correction and gentle guidance;
3. Act in love to hold others to account for words, behaviour or practices which hurt, harm or exclude;
4. Promote respectful, inclusive and informed discussion about issues of Biblical interpretation and application;
5. Work with you to bring about transformative change within our churches.
Well done.
* 1. An apology motivated by the realization that one’s past conduct was unjust, unfair, and wrong, constituting an unequivocal admission of wrongdoing as well as regret, remorse and contrition, as part of a sincere effort to make amends and seek forgiveness.
__________________________
Pointer: Fred
Ethics Alarms 
I’ve always gotten a kick out of the Catholic Church’s stance: “Okay, you can be gay or lebian, just don’t do it. Be celibate.” HIlarious.
The Catholic Church’s stances on a lot of things, both on the political left and the political right, don’t make sense in the real world. If you married before you were ready and it didn’t work out, tough luck, you can never marry again without going through a difficult annulment process. If you have as many children as you can responsibly afford, then you and your wife need to back off the sex significantly, because no artificial birth control is allowed, and we better not hear you say that kids aren’t for you, even if it happens to be the truth. We don’t care what someone did, he’s still made in the image of God, and capital punishment is not allowed, nor is life without the possibility of parole, because that’s just capital punishment on the installment plan. It doesn’t matter that the other side has enough powerful weapons pointed at you to wipe you out, you can’t morally point the equivalent back at him to convince him maybe he might not want to pull the trigger. Oh, and if someone comes to your country you must welcome him with open arms, no matter what. That’s the difference between ethics and morality.
There are many, many things about the Church I admire, Steve. But for the last fifty years, I’ve admired them from afar.
(shrug) I don’t admire a lot of this, BUT, I remain a member, partly because I loathe atheism and atheists, partly because my dad is still a faithful churchgoer.
We’ve taken opposite paths. I quit going to Mass as soon as I turned sixteen and got my driver’s license and could head off on Sunday morning around the time of a Mass and just spend half the day wandering around, no questions asked. Too many phony priests and brothers for me to stomach. Many good people, but lots of really bad ones.Grade A hypocrites. Well, that and guitar Masses. Ugh.
Guitar masses. Ugh.
Amen to hum-and-strum Masses. Yuck. As a trained choral singer those are ANATHEMA.
I am addressing this to all interested readers of Ethics Alarms, not just the wonderful Steve-O, who has heard it all before, but it’s been a while since the subject has come up. It is clear that Ethics Alarms has a preponderance of commenters who have (and sometimes vigorously find it necessary to defend or decry) a religion. That everyone has a religion seems to be taken for granted, the way homosexuality was automatically assumed to be completely wrong/bad/sick/whatever not so very long ago, and the conversation went on from there. . .The way being politically conservative is the norm here as well.
But once in a while, I have to respond to this kind of statement
I remain a member, partly because I loathe atheism and atheists,
I understand the part about your dad, Steve, but the “loathing” of atheism doesn’t make any more sense than your oft expressed
loathing of homosexuality and homosexuals.
And the loathing of atheists makes even less sense. People cannot believe what they disbelieve (or not be what they are) anymore than they can do the opposite. Nor is a disbelief any more negative than a belief. It am what it am. That is the power of faith reinforced by an individual’s conscious existence and identity. Not to mention your or anyone else’s inability to distinguish an atheist (and most homosexuals, for that matter) from anyone else.
Some people may go to church because it is the thing to do according to family, peers or community, not because of belief. Some people may declare atheism because of the same casual but pressing external reasons. I think the majority of people who feel one way or the other do so not by active choice but by an inherent “knowing” that something (usually called a god or higher power) has a presence — or NOT — in their minds. The intellectual argument is that of the agnostic who doesn’t “believe” in either direction, feeling that we can’t “know” either way. [okay, that’s an oversimplification, but I think that gets it across.]
I am aware that neither of us are going to change our spots so I will respectfully read any response you care to make (I have appreciated and often enjoyed the ones you create when not in your Mr. Hyde mode), but I don’t see any purpose in arguing it on a subjective level, a futile exercise that never ends in enlightenment on either side. I will simply loathe your loathing aloud when I am able to do so.
Comment of the day. And a special thanks, because writing is a chore for me right now, and I appreciate the quality content.
Thank you, Jack.
I have an inventor friend who is (one of many) working on thought-wave controlled robots. I saw a test demonstration of one picking a pocket … though not without being noticed. That’s the downside, but the other is having to just think your posts.
Funny that this must be said… conservatism is all about letting you have your freedoms as long as you do not force them on ‘me’
well stated
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Actually, the stance of The Catholic Church is celibacy for EVERYONE outside of marriage, There is no distinction for Gay or Lesbian.I get a kick out of how many people don’t know that.
Gee, thanks for that David. Very helpful.
You’re welcome Bill.
Evidently the Church has endorsed gay marriage, Jack. Surprise!
David, when did the Catholic Church begin supporting gay marriage?
Chris, Google is your friend.
Google tells me that the Church is making an effort to be more accepting of gay members, but still does not support gay marriage.
This would seem to contradict David’s statement that “Actually, the stance of The Catholic Church is celibacy for EVERYONE outside of marriage, There is no distinction for Gay or Lesbian.”
Since the Catholic Church allows marriage as an option for heterosexuals but not for homosexuals, then it seems there is a might big distinction; straight people only have to be celibate until they are married, while gays and lesbians have to be celibate forever.
Thanks Chris.
The sentiment behind the “apology” is laudable. Equal Voices deserves credit for their stance. No argument there.
But this is not an apology. As your “Level 1” definition shows, an apology implies remorse for one’s own conduct. This group is apologizing for other people who are only associated to them through religion, without the agreement of the people who are being accused of doing something wrong.
Its a little like when some Jewish people “apologize” for the alleged misdeeds of Israel. Whatever the merits of the criticism, it is no apology when people who have nothing to do with the alleged misdeeds apologize for them. It is merely virtue signaling, which is almost the opposite of an apology.
Except that one signing the apology is presumably apologizing for him- or herself, right?
My point is that its deliberately ambiguous. It provides a mechanism to apologize for a broad host of sins without the signer actually taking responsibility for doing anything in particular wrong.
If I recall, Jack has previously taken the stance that members of a group should take responsibility for that group’s actions, even if they have not directly engaged in those actions as individuals. So for instance, if a group of Democrats apologized for the Democrats’ post-election behavior, or if a group of Muslims apologized for Islamic terror, and did so in this same fashion, he would also consider those great apologies.
Boy, you like to bundle up unrelated things. Citation, please. I don’t think Muslims have to apologize for ISIS or Al Qida, and have never said so. I have never said that Democrats need to apologize for the party acting like assholes since November 8, either. What I have said is that leaders with influence over Democrats should strongly urge them to stop it, and acknowledge that it is wrong. I don’t find apologies especially effective or useful. I flag bad and insincere ones. Aplogies are nice: being ethical is better, apology or not.
Why do they not apologize on behalf of Muslims and Scientologists as well?
Because they are not Muslims or Scientologists, silly goose. They are Christians.
So am I, and I sure didn’t sign off on this. People change their sexual orientation all the time. Must be frustrating to be told they don’t exist.
Isaac:
People change their sexual orientation all the time. Must be frustrating to be told they don’t exist.
Please show me where in this apology you inferred the message “people who change their sexual orientation don’t exist.”
This is the part that addresses changing sexual orientation:
For talking to you or about you in such a way as to suggest that sexual and gender differences are not part of your true identity as humans made in the image of God;
For perpetuating the mistaken belief that sexual orientation and gender identity should be treated, healed or changed;
Note that the apology does not dispute that sexual identity “can” be changed; it merely disputes the idea that it “should” be changed.
I think this was fairly obvious, and I think your statement amounts to concern-trolling. Where is your concern for the vast majority of gay people who neither wish to change their orientation nor find that a realistic option? You find this offensive because you erroneously believe it insults people who change their orientation, but you are not at all offended by the attempts of some Christians to force people to change their orientation? You are not at all offended by Christians telling trans people they don’t exist?
People change their sexual orientation all the time.
Citation please, Isaac.
Something about this apology smells of another agenda.
Points 2-6 make enough sense however the other points almost seem like they’re intended to appease *certain* LGBT’s and their lobbies. I say this as a lady married to another lady, saddened to see religious freedom increasingly take a nose dive in the quest for cultural Marxism.
Point 8 mentions harm, and yes harm is bad, but what is the “harm” they’ve done? Is the harm simply believing certain tenants or is the harm from committing violence? This is not clear. What is clear is that “mistaken belief,” “rejecting,” and “not acknowledging” seems to be the crime here. Why can’t a church believe that homosexuality is a sin or that taking hormones and cutting into bodies denigrates God’s creation? There needs to be no apology for such thinking unless *the way* they go about their treatment of such peoples is denigrating. Which was clarified in points 2-6 & the commitment points.
The apology feels like this church supports a newer more universalist LGBT lobby friendly version group think. Not sure I can commend that.
Why can’t a church believe that homosexuality is a sin or that taking hormones and cutting into bodies denigrates God’s creation? There needs to be no apology for such thinking unless *the way* they go about their treatment of such peoples is denigrating.
Putting aside all the documented harm to gay and trans youth who have been kicked out of their homes, put into harmful conversion “therapy,” subjected to bullying and social ostracism, etc. etc….
I don’t think there is a way to go about expressing such beliefs that isn’t denigrating.
If you tell someone that it is a sin to love someone else because of a morally neutral aspect like gender, that is inherently denigrating. Back when interracial marriage was seen by most Americans as wrong (so, any time before 1990), certainly some people might have been very nice about how they went about expressing their belief that white people shouldn’t marry black people. Maybe they even treated those couples with as much respect as anyone else. Their belief was still wrong, and expressing that belief would always be, at best, incredibly rude. There is no difference in the case of gay marriage, except that it’s newer.
If I believe my religion requires me to sincerely believe it is wrong for right-handed people to marry left-handed people, I don’t think there’s any way for me to tell a mixed-handedness couple that, that will not feel to them like a denigration of their relationship and who they are.
Similarly, gender identity is a huge part of someone’s identity, and telling someone that they are not the gender they think they are will always be perceived as denigrating.
When do Muslims apologize for teaching that Allah forbids drinking alcohol?
Should that not offend me?
Am I ethically entitled to an apology?
I don’t think drinking alcohol can be considered as much a part of one’s identity as their gender or whom they love.
This church has clearly swallowed the LGBTQI lobby Kool-Aid. The language looks like the HRC wrote it themselves…or someone allied with them at least. If a church or anyone treats each person they encounter with basic respect, because they’re people regardless of whoever they identify, that is enough. Having to placate people by pretending affirm publically what they don’t agree with privately will always have disastrous results.
From alcohol prohibition here in the US to Lenin Corners in Russia, trying to control the thoughts of the people is akin to attempting to control the people. This is evil and dangerous.
To impose yours or anyone else’s idea of virtue requires propaganda & brainwashing (mind control) or using the law to set fourth parameters on what folks can think, or you have to beat them up to submit or you have to kill them (or all of the above as we’ve seen in many bad times in history). If transgenderism, for example is a good thing, eventually others will recognize this. If not, the people, regardless of being labeled bigot or not, will also eventually get it. Time takes time and trying to speed up virtue by manipulating churches or by churches manipulating, can only result in the eventual decay of personhood.
This church has clearly swallowed the LGBTQI lobby Kool-Aid.
It strikes me as sad to see someone who asserts to be on the LGBTQI spectrum write this.
If a church or anyone treats each person they encounter with basic respect, because they’re people regardless of whoever they identify, that is enough.
And clearly the Christians who wrote this apology do not believe their churches have treated LGBT people with basic respect.
Having to placate people by pretending affirm publically what they don’t agree with privately will always have disastrous results.
Where are you getting the idea that this is what they are doing? There are plenty of Christians who believe the proscriptions against homosexuality in the Bible–a few in Old Testament law, and a couple in the letters from Paul–no longer apply. I would wager these Christians are among them.
From alcohol prohibition here in the US to Lenin Corners in Russia, trying to control the thoughts of the people is akin to attempting to control the people. This is evil and dangerous.
You…you realize that less than two years ago, it was Christians who, by your standards, were trying to “control the thoughts of people” through prohibition of gay marriage?
How does apologizing for doing this amount to trying to control the thoughts of people who were OK with doing this?
To impose yours or anyone else’s idea of virtue requires propaganda & brainwashing (mind control) or using the law to set fourth parameters on what folks can think, or you have to beat them up to submit or you have to kill them (or all of the above as we’ve seen in many bad times in history).
But this group literally isn’t doing any of that.
If transgenderism, for example is a good thing, eventually others will recognize this.
“If black people are just as good as white people, eventually others will recognize this. So that Mr. King should get off his high horse and just let us progress in our own way.”
Time takes time and trying to speed up virtue by manipulating churches or by churches manipulating, can only result in the eventual decay of personhood.
I literally don’t know what you are talking about here. Whom do you think these Christians are manipulating with this letter? Themselves?
HI Chris. I never said I considered myself on “the spectrum” & it strikes me as brainwashed to assume someone married to someone of the same sex is automatically represented by and adheres to the LGBTQI (when will this acronym end?) lobby. That’s group think my friend & your assertion only serves to make my point.
I get my idea about this church because I know a thing or 2 about such lobbies & how they influence churches. I’ve studied the language, message, money, and ties to other agencies. My strong suspicion is this church was influenced & is attempting to influence. You don’t have to see it or agree. Time will tell soon enough.
Who I think is being influenced are free thinking church goers. There are several “conversion” tactics evident in the language. From creating confusion (we all did it & were all sorry and we all didn’t do it and we’re all sorry) to introducing jargon (be open, be tolerant, be sorry, work to bring transformative change) to enforcing group think (if you’re going to be a part of this church this is how you should think).
Any cult (or manipulative lobby), including the new world religion of social justice leaves the same trail that I see from the rhetoric in the letter:
Message adoption (we Christians should be “tolerant”). System of counselors & the counseled (we’ll show you how to be a “tolerant” Christian at this meeting and at that seminar & with this $10 membership). Instruction in practices/beliefs (we will do & say this and not that). Narrative of personal degradation (we’re sorry were so bad & mean & misguided). Redemption (if you act like you agree with us you’ll be a better person). Hope (maybe if I’m nice to the guy in a dress it will show I’m a nice person). Charismatic-like group (our church or organization is awesome because we think this way). Dependency (if I don’t agree I’ll lose my church friends).
This is the last thing I have to say- This transgender movement isn’t what it seems. I implore you Chris to be sober & watch on that issue. It’s not because I hate anyone…I truly don’t. What I’m saying is all isn’t as it seems and gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and yes even some transgender folks are being used. You don’t have to believe me, but I encourage you in the name of curiosity to look a little deeper. Be well!
Mrs. Q:
HI Chris. I never said I considered myself on “the spectrum” & it strikes me as brainwashed to assume someone married to someone of the same sex is automatically represented by and adheres to the LGBTQI (when will this acronym end?) lobby. That’s group think my friend & your assertion only serves to make my point.
Far be it from me to tell you how to identify, but are you actually saying the LGBTQI movement hasn’t helped you? You realize if it weren’t for this movement, your marriage would not be legally valid, right?
I get my idea about this church because I know a thing or 2 about such lobbies & how they influence churches. I’ve studied the language, message, money, and ties to other agencies. My strong suspicion is this church was influenced & is attempting to influence. You don’t have to see it or agree. Time will tell soon enough.
It’s not that I don’t agree that they’ve been “influenced,” it’s that I’m not understanding your implication that there is something sinister about that. People are “influenced” by ideas and beliefs all the time. Show me a church that has not been “influenced” by another part of the culture, and I’ll show you how they have been.
Who I think is being influenced are free thinking church goers. There are several “conversion” tactics evident in the language. From creating confusion (we all did it & were all sorry and we all didn’t do it and we’re all sorry) to introducing jargon (be open, be tolerant, be sorry, work to bring transformative change) to enforcing group think (if you’re going to be a part of this church this is how you should think).
Again, name a church that doesn’t do this. What makes this church any less “free-thinking” than churches that preach homosexuality is a sin?
Any cult (or manipulative lobby), including the new world religion of social justice leaves the same trail that I see from the rhetoric in the letter:
Message adoption (we Christians should be “tolerant”). System of counselors & the counseled (we’ll show you how to be a “tolerant” Christian at this meeting and at that seminar & with this $10 membership). Instruction in practices/beliefs (we will do & say this and not that). Narrative of personal degradation (we’re sorry were so bad & mean & misguided). Redemption (if you act like you agree with us you’ll be a better person). Hope (maybe if I’m nice to the guy in a dress it will show I’m a nice person). Charismatic-like group (our church or organization is awesome because we think this way). Dependency (if I don’t agree I’ll lose my church friends).
Again, thank you for describing every church ever. What is your point?
This is the last thing I have to say- This transgender movement isn’t what it seems. I implore you Chris to be sober & watch on that issue. It’s not because I hate anyone…I truly don’t. What I’m saying is all isn’t as it seems and gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and yes even some transgender folks are being used. You don’t have to believe me, but I encourage you in the name of curiosity to look a little deeper. Be well!
This is so vague as to be meaningless. What exactly are you saying? Be clear.
https://equalvoices.org.au
If you go to the main page you will notice: 14 women and 4 men. If you asked me, and the people I hang out with, what is going on there you’d get some interesting responses! Men tend to hold to doctrinal positions and women tend, especially under bad influence, to go with superficial sentimentality.
The ramifications of our societies giving themselves over to homosexual practices, to the normalization of homosexuality, and elevating it to the same level as that of fruitful man-woman relationship (the base of society), will have degenerating consequences. Period. You can pretend that that is not the case, but I think it is the case. (And I understand that some disagree vehemently).
Sexual attitudes have gotten exploded since the 60s catastrophe, and the same hyper-liberalism is operating in that realm as it has been operating in many other realms. I suggest that when you actually look into it, and examine the consequences, the consequences are not good. But we live in coercive times where many different powers and factions influence us to accept things that, left to ourselves, we would not. In this sense the hyper-liberalism of sexual licence is part of a general acid-attack that eats away at society’s structures.
I tend to agree with E. Michael Jones that the Gay Liberation movement is just another branch of the Marxian movement (he sees it is Trotskyist and talks about it). But he is a traditional Catholic and his view is structured around it.
Equal Voices is a ‘Non-Denominational’ Christian group which is, in my book, pseudo-Christianity. They can sort of believe whatever they want and, from what I have noticed, have no genuine historical root. It very likely has almost zero doctrinal base, and thus no substantial link even to Protestantism.
To understand a *genuine* stance on sexual deviation requires an examination of the historical Church, not some hyper-modern and hyper-liberal variant. The early church took a position against the licence of the Heathen world and brought the possibility of the ‘Christian cure’ to people. It was part and parcel of the belief system to resist physical impulses and to channel them to higher things.
Now, people and culture give themselves over to these excesses, and they have no way of appreciating — or even defining — ‘higher things’. But this is the cycle we are in: a descending cycle where bit by bit, day by day, the ground melts and an agreed structure of things is, well, no longer agreed on.
To define a ‘genuine conservatism’ requires very structured and doctrinal choices. Another reason why I do not think this blog can honestly be said to be ‘conservative’. It is a slightly right of center blog. But it too, inch by inch, will move evermore over to the left. That is what happens when one relinquishes a philosophical and metaphysical base.
Men tend to hold to doctrinal positions and women tend, especially under bad influence, to go with superficial sentimentality.
In what way is “doctrine” more rational than sentimentality? Neither are based on reason. And the notion that homosexuality is unethical is certainly not based on reason.
The ramifications of our societies giving themselves over to homosexual practices, to the normalization of homosexuality, and elevating it to the same level as that of fruitful man-woman relationship (the base of society), will have degenerating consequences.
How many children have you “fruitfully produced,” Alizia?
I am in a man-woman relationship, and we plan on never having children. Is our relationship on a lower level than a relationship that produces children in your eyes? Is it on the same level as a gay relationship in your eyes? If so, why should I care?
(I already know your opinion of interracial marriage, so I won’t ask about that.)
. You can pretend that that is not the case, but I think it is the case. (And I understand that some disagree vehemently).
Well, no, you don’t, because you just said that those of us who don’t hold to your irrational stance on homosexuality are “pretending. So at best, you think we are pretending to disagree with you.
That is an easy question: ‘doctrine’ is the result of a great deal of mental work. But there is another dimension as well, but I don’t imagine you will like to hear about it much. In Christian thinking and practice there is understood to be very real differnciations between higher and lower things. It takes strenuous efforts to receive vision and understanding from the *higher* dimension and always something of the *lower* has to be sacrificed. This is a simple fact.
While it is true indeed that there are ‘high sentiments’ and elevated understanding, these also come through sacrifice of some sort. I am just repeating what is presented in theology, in poems, in art.
Sentiment and emotion are often — not always but often — contaminated by desire, by will, by personal longing. Just like a child’s wishes and desires. Always felt, always emotional, and seldom rational.
Rationality in the Greek and the Christian sense is of another order. It comes through understanding, not through the contamination of the emotions and the sentiments (properly understood).
I would suggest that we live now in a very contaminated world. It is a project all to itself to describe it. It is contaminated by image, by encitement of desire, by wilfulness. Everyone makes a play for the sentiments and the emotions (advertising, demogoguery, popular music, et cetera) and few can put up with strict and demanding reason.
Anyway, sound doctrine is very definitely a product of reason and often opposes sentiment and its desires.
__________________
It is a question both of values but also of symbols, Chris. The man-woman relationship is a reality but it is also a symbol. I don’t think this needs explaination. It is very easily visible in all art. I say that the man-woman relationship, and marriage of course, must be seen as superior and of higher value than a man-man or woman-woman relationship. But I am aware of my own profound conservatism, yet I do not turn away from it, I rather go into it. I make it stronger, not weaker. This is conscious choice (and supported by the community I live in).
__________________
I am not yet married so I have not produced children. But I will. Why does this concern you? It shouldn’t. Because I am speaking, or trying to, of ‘eternal truths’ not transient, shifting truths.
__________________
Well, I think that many people ‘pretend’ that certain things are ‘good’, and they do this by the power of coercion. Social coercion, coercion by media. Coercion by media is in a way a ‘rational’ though somewhat diabolic coercion because it can be done behind the scenes. It can be planned and then carried out. I suggest that we live in the outcome of long LONG chains of coercion and manipulation.
I also suggest that now, and in the coming years, and for the next 50 years, there will be a return and a renacimiento of real conservatism, and real traditionalism. I suggest that very few on this blog are aware, or seem aware, of the traditional forces that are forming and reforming.
Your attachment to symbols is sentimental, not rational.
I asked how many children you have produced because you insisted that relationships which produce children are superior to those that do not. This would seem to suggest that people who produce children are superior to those that do not.
I assure you that neither your worth, nor the worth of your current or future relationships, is based on whether you produce children.
And of course, you cannot know if you will produce any children in the future. You may intend to, but that doesn’t mean it will happen. Again, whether you do or do not, that has no bearing on either your personal worth or the worth of your relationship. And neither does it have any bearing on the worth of gay people or gay relationships.
We could likely go over this until the world and the universe collapse into theirselves again and not resolve it. Radically different metaphysics is what it is.
If ever you had to explain existence and being — your being here and the world — how would you do it?
Interesting. I think a person’s worth is intrinsic, but naturally I see it through theological lenses, and Christian ones. But I would say that I would wish to conceive of my own worth as worthy to the degree that I establish myself in truth. I may start out intrinsically worthy but it is up to me to flow into the proper form. To serve properly.
My hierarchy is non-complex, don’t get so confused. It is not complex. The man-woman relationship as a general and universal category of humankind has more intrinsic worth because it is the relationship out of which humanity arises. I would not ever grant an equal status to a homosexual union for this basic reason.
Homosexual practice, and *the homosexualization of culture* is another category of concern. I think it should be opposed, not encouraged. And that will happen as this present liberal descending cycle will, naturally, reach its nadir. Also Sprach Alizia.
Attachments can be emotional and sentimental, no doubt. But I would prefer to think that if I am attached to an idea or to values it is because of a reasoned concern. A thought-through concern. That is different from sentimentalism as it normally is understood.
Do I get any prize after clearly winning this exchange? 😉
You continue to avoid the central question: are heterosexual unions which do not produce children less valid to heterosexual unions that do? Should we refuse to license marriage to heterosexual unions which we know will not produce children?
If not, then your assertion that you value heterosexual unions higher than homosexual unions based on the former’s ability to conceive children is a rationalization, a smokescreen; you are working backwards to justify your bigotry.
As always.
Actually, it is the other way round: you do not desire to see and understand the main point because, doing so, would involve you to have to remodel what is your adamant understanding. You do not have a notion of sanctification, it is not a category of understanding yourself, things, this reality. But that is the position that I start from. And to have got to that point has meant a whole chain of other antecedents.
I would answer your question, which is part of a set-up of course, in this way: it seems to me that any couple, and all people, should have a special respect for the family. And that means a given couple who has had children and is raising them. It seems to me that to have that value is a very important one. If a given couple, let us say, could not have children, it would seem to me that there are other ways for them to honor and respect not only those who can and do, but perhaps to volunteer time, or contribute to schools for children.
But what you seem to be asking is about a couple who, for different reasons, deliberately choose not to have children when, perhaps, they can. If you ask me to make some judgment about that I am not sure what I would say. I would not want to be the one to judge as it is not my issue. But the main question is: What are we here to serve? In the best case, there is always a higher principle that should direct our focus. Maybe their motive is purely selfish?
I do not think it proper to extend santification of homosexual marriage to the homosexual union. The main point is there. To me, I can see my own point very clearly. But I am aware that I am looking at things through a more traditional lens. I am definitely not looking at it through a modern or hyper-liberal one! But that is your basic lens, the one you see everything with. You do seem to have an near religious focus and intensity (as do many SJW types) but your categories of concern are strictly within the ‘egalitarian’. You are forced, as it were, to see any couple and all coupling as equal. Propbably when the day comes when 3 women marry, or two women and their horse, you will have to sit down with yourself and apply the same egalitarian reasoning. And you will come up saying: Well, it’s their choice, they are free to do so. I give my blessing!
The homosexual movement, and the community, and I say this from my experience living in the Bay Area (well, Sacramento), is rooted in bizarre sexual practice. The root is there. It is sexuality that is completely outside of the normal and the natural parameter and for this reason, and of course from a Christian perspective, and a Christian metaphysic, it will always be problematic. I understand why Christian philosophy defines sexual deviancy as a sickness and a sin. It makes the same judgment about heterosexual excess, and certainly such excess outside of the marriage bond. And further outside of a bond that is actually sanctified. I am reasonably sure that none of these concerns are real for you. But to understand my view, you have to understand that I am a person who deliberately chooses to recover and strengthen an older, traditional framework.
When people lose their relationship to the sacred traditions, and it is quite obvious and evident that few can speak in these terms and want to, I notice that they simply begin to go off the rails. One area of deviation opens up to other areas and, as I see things, people fall quickly.
Didn’t you ask a quation though? Oh, right. You did. Sorry, I seem to have gone off on tangents!
Do note this: I accept that you see my views and the ideas standing behind them as bigotry.
But if I could not defend my views with sound reasoning, as I believe that I am, my views would not be ethical nor moral and I would be in conflict with myself. I am not in conflict with myself though. I am in harmony with myself. I just function under a different rulership than you.
The homosexual movement, and the community, and I say this from my experience living in the Bay Area (well, Sacramento), is rooted in bizarre sexual practice.
Thank you for confirming that your irrational argument about procreation is indeed a smokescreen, and that your real objection to homosexuality is that you are grossed out by gay sex.
It appears to me that some people here are very threatened by members of a religious denomination they do not share apologizing to a group they do not like for mistreating them in ways they do not seem to remember happening.
Strange.
Read this very quote:
“Considering the ways in which you have been hurt by me, and by other Christians and churches, I ask for your forgiveness”
They purport to speak for other Christians. They have no more credibility doing so than speaking for Muslims or Scientologists.