The slogan on the white T-shirts for kids is short and bittersweet.
The simple blue letters declare, “My daddy’s name is Donor.” You can buy a baby bib with the same proclamation.
For a self-proclaimed “marriage nut” like David Blankenhorn, it’s hard to see this consumer product as a positive statement about modern family life. Of course, America has been evolving for several decades after the cultural revolutions that changed how millions of people live together, break up, get married, get divorced, have children or some combination of all the above.
Thus, the president of the Institute for American Values keeps hearing this big question: “What is the future of marriage?” It’s a logical question, since his most recent book is called “The Future of Marriage.”
There is no easy answer, however, other than stating the fact that elite opinion makers and academics are convinced that old-fashioned, especially religious, traditions about marriage are fading.
“The smart money says, ‘Down the tubes,’ ” said Blankenhorn, speaking recently at Gordon College, an evangelical Protestant campus near Boston.
“The big word is ‘deinstitutionalization.’ … It’s this notion of redefining marriage into just being a kind of Hallmark greeting card that says, ‘We’re in love, we have a commitment, oh special us.’ That’s what marriage is.”
[i]”the marriage is bigger than the couple,” [/i] That is true. It is much more than the sum of its parts. I was single a long time. I didn’t get married until I was 43. I had no idea how much marriage would change me. I use the word change lacking a better word. We both view our marriage as God’s will and the vows we made before God, our families and our friends are sacrosanct. I honor my spouse above all others.
I worry less about gay marriage than I do about cultural “icons” who pick up and put down a husband or wife like children with toys. I worry about the message that sends to young people. I also notice that the more fundamentalist evangelicals have the highest divorce rate in the USA. The Southern Baptists have the highest divorce rate among protestants.
I hope the future of marriage isn’t “down the tubes” but that there is a new awakening to the serious nature and joy of those vows.
“The Sacrament of Marriage is not a ceremony and state of life designed to make each spouse happy. It is designed to make each spouse Holy.”
KTF….mrb
Can you imagine what the world would look like if even .2% of the energy behind the battles that rage in churches – worship wars, purity codes, ordination, even Scriptural interpretation – if even .2% of that went into supporting couples who are either (a) getting married or (b) married – communities surrounding them to raise them up, to support them, to help them when they struggle.
Sorry – I went off the right/left, re-asserter/re-appraiser script for a moment – back to my numbing substance of choice and a steady diet of BUY-BUY-BUY.
I heard a phrase that sent a shudder down my theological spine the other day:
“STARTER WIFE”.
ugh. What a concept!
This essay is important for what it leaves out. He speaks of the relationship as somehow “transcendant” but he does not say what this means and what it consequences are. Again, he does not say how one is to stop more than two people marrying once the definition of marriage is changed. He cites the Mass Supremes, but he does not say anything about their argument being applicable to more than two people, even though they cite two people without comment.
He’s right about the contemporary view of marriage as an exercise in egotism and immediate gratification, but I suspect – without real evidence, for this is a hunch, a gut feeling – that the the marriage problems he speaks of are creatures of the last century, and that marriage as a life long committment between a man and a woman is quietly making its way back, because the young, who have had to live through the misery attendant on the upheavals of their parents and non-parent pairings and dissolutions, have quietly decided not to follow that route any more. The only evidence I have, really, is that divorce rates are falling country-wide. They want emotional stability now, and why should they not? The last century has spoken and this essay in one of the voices. The new century has yet to speak, but when it does, it won’t be the same language that the fin de siecle has made current. LM
Revamundo, et. al,
Homosexual “marriage” will not bring about the downfall of traditional marriage. Homosexual “marriage” is the result of the downfall of traditional marriage. If, as society says, marriage is simply a social construct designed for inheritance and mutual benefit that can be created quickly in a small chapel in Vegas and just as quickly destroyed in a courtroom, they why can’t any two people (or more!) get married? If there is nothing transcendent or special about marriage that needs to be held up, then why not?
Bob, I agree with you here. We are spending way too much time on the issue of homosexual marriage and blessing ssu. How about we return to the status quo ante – before the reappraisers brought this issue up again and again and again after it had been decided in GC1979 and Lambeth 1998? Would that suffice? No priest is allowed to bless same sex unions in a public setting (such as a church building, hotel, rental hall, or other public venue) and no sexually active homosexual men or women are ordained. We could then concentrate on spreading the Gospel, fighting poverty, hunger, and disease world wide, implimenting means to accomplish the MDGs and supporting marriages as they begin and as they go through stresses. What do you say?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Phil, you’ve offered this “revert” strategy before. How should we handle the countless bishops, priests, music directors & church leaders who stayed closeted so they could continue to serve their Risen Savior ? Don’t ask, don’t tell ?
[i]Homosexual “marriage†will not bring about the downfall of traditional marriage.[/i] Never said that it would.
[i]Homosexual “marriage†is the result of the downfall of traditional marriage.[/i] No, it is the result of a class of people who want equal rights.
Holy Matrimony is one thing, marriage is another and I should have made my view of that clear in my first post. I feel blessed to have both in my life. Lots of people just have the marriage part. The marriage part though, gives me rights through the state as next of kin. Those rights and freedoms should not be denied to gay and lesbian couples IMHO. On the other hand, any church, religion, sect that wants to refuse a service of Holy Matrimony or blessing or whatever they want to call it…fine by me. That is their right as a community.
I think separating the two the way they do in some European countries is the right thing. One ceremony at the town hall and one at the church.
What shouldn’t gays have marriage equality? All this huffing and puffing about SEX from the reasserters makes me wonder why they are so obsessed about it? Too much emphasis on the sex act if you ask me. Aren’t there bigger things to worry about in the world today? Besides, somebody just quipped to me the other day that “there is no sex after marriage!!”
#6, #3 (and anyone else): what’s the focus at your church? Our Rector is doing a 6 week Wednesday evening series on marriage. In 6 years, there has hardly been a word breathed about ssu/gay marriage. And for that reason, along with some others, I’m still a member.
#9, yes. In fact, they already do.
“All this huffing and puffing about SEX from the reasserters makes me wonder why they are so obsessed about it?”
Riiiiiight. You have the nerve to say that in the wake of the Folsom Street Fair last week? LOL!
Revamundo – homosexuals already have equal marriage rights. Marriage is defined as one man and one woman. A homosexual man is free to marry any woman who will agree to it. Likewise a homosexual woman is free to marry any man that will agree to it.
What many are pushing is that we change the traditional definition of marriage such that it may be defined as two people who are not related within a specific degree (such as siblings, 1st cousins, parent/child etc.). If we are going to do this, then why should we stop at two people?
Bob – anyone who is willing to try to live according to the teaching of the church that they desire to lead ,and repents when (s)he falls, should be allowed to continue. Those who cannot abide the teaching of the Church should not lead the Church. Those who wish to change the teaching of the Church should wait until the teaching is changed before acting on their new “understanding.” As Jesus said, “let your yes be yes and your no be no.” Do not say that you will “be loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church [b]has received[/b] them” when you have no intention of doing so. If you take this oath (and all ECUSA clergy have taken it) with the knowledge that you will not do so as you have sworn to do, but will call “blessed” what the Church has always called “sin” then what does that say about your character?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Phil,
Our own Cathecism defines sin as:
Sin is the seeking of our own will instead of the will of God, thus
distorting our relationship with God, with other people, and with all creation.
In all honestly, what person who is baptized (the highest level of ministry) has not sought their own will instead of the will of God ? Pursuing wealth, power, gossipping – that is almost the job description of many priests & bishops.
But then we decide that our definition of homosexuality is a sin, a sin greater than others.
What a classic example of distorting our relationship with God, with other people, and with all creation.
Bob: “But then we decide that our definition of homosexuality is a sin, a sin greater than others.”
Because it has gotten a lot of attention doesn’t mean anyone thinks it is MORE of a sin. You are wrong to claim that.
And, the definition of homosexual acts as sinful doesn’t come from any man. It comes from God in His Word. To say otherwise is a lie.
Bob,
I never said that homosexuality is a sin. Homosexual sex is a sin (as defined by the unbroken tradition of the Church. Homosexual sex is certainly not the worst sin nor is it one of the worst. I have never stated otherwise.
However being willing to plunge the entire Anglican Communion into schism and chaos just so you can bless what the vast majority of the Communion (and the vast majority of the Christian Church) calls “sin” definitely falls into “seeking our own will instead of the will of God” and “distoring our relationship with God, with other people, and with all creation.” You, yourself, decried the energy wasted on this schismatic action (my words, not yours). GC spoke to the issue in 1979. In 2003, the Theology Committee of the HoB determined that legislative action would not and should not settle the issue. For over 2000 years, (3000 if you count the people of Israel as the people of God) the people of God have held homosexual sex to be a perversion of the natural order and to be wrong in all cases. Are we, then, to overturn 3000 years of moral teaching based on 30 years of arguments and the votes of a very small minority of the Church catholic?
We have all sought our own wills and we have all sinned. The difference is that I repent of my sin and I have declared Christ’s forgiveness to those who repent of their sins. Those who bless same sex unions are glorifying sin and calling it blessed. Doesn’t it strike you as arrogant in the extreme to think that this small band of people know the will of God more than the millions of Christians and thousands of bishops and priests in the rest of the Church (Anglican, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox)? If this truly is of God, then what is harmed by not engaging in homosexual sex while the Church determines it is of God? If it is of God, what is lessed or harmed by not allowing priests and bishops to pronounce a blessing until the Church sees that it is of God? If it is of God, then why not make that argument within the Apostles’ teaching rather than by sociological, psyiological and psychological terms?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
[i]Revamundo – homosexuals already have equal marriage rights. Marriage is defined as one man and one woman. A homosexual man is free to marry any woman who will agree to it. Likewise a homosexual woman is free to marry any man that will agree to it.[/i]
That’s just foolish bigotry.
Revamundo,
Can you show me any place or time prior to 1990 in the United States where marriage was defined as anything other than one man and one woman? Can you show me where in England (from where our laws are based) where marriage was defined as anything other than one man and one woman?
What is happening here is that people are trying to change the definition of marriage. Marriage has never been between two men or two women. Why can’t you just admit that this is the case and move on? I could support the abolishment of state sanctioned “marriage” in place of a “civil union” for any two people (or more) who want to join into a contractual arrangement for the efficient disposition of personal and communal property because that is all that “marriage” seems to mean in today’s society.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
#16: Prove it wrong. If it’s so foolish, then it should be easy.
It so much easier to just call someone a “bigot” than to actually think and argue, isn’t it???
At the present time, what you call mariage is properly called a civil union or civil partnership. It is a legal structure like any partnership, and is subject to the usual civil limitations and protections.
Marriage and holy matrimony are near synonyms. That is, they are spiritual rather than practical. The First Amendment is clear: Congress cannot legislate in this area. The Amend says that Congress shall make no laws governing religion, not governing churches or denominations, so we know they meant religion in a broad sense. Accordingly, a church can marry whomever it wishes, or whatever number, so TEC is free to do what it wants, in the civil sense. But the Bible does not grant the same freedom, so that marriage is only between a man and a woman, homosexual acts are condemned outright, and homosexuality itself is condemned by Paul.
This distinction between civil unions and marriage needs to be kept straight because the air is now so full of dust and dirt that even obvious distinctions get obscured. Larry
Philip…because that is not the case. You need to move on into 2007. Neither of us lives prior to 1990. We’re not in the past.
Rolling Eyes, it is easier to just say something foolish than to think and argue isn’t it???!!! I found Philip’s comments in #12 offensive and thoughtless. But then it is easy to just spit on a minority class of people isn’t it. And for your edification Rolling Eyes, here’s 3 examples of proof:
Unabridged Dictionary:
–noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
American Heritage Dictionary:
The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The state of being married; wedlock.
A common-law marriage.
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
Online Etymology Dictionary:
marriage
1297, from O.Fr. mariage (12c.), from V.L. *maritaticum, from L. maritatus, pp. of maritatre “to wed, marry, give in marriage”
And just to placate you a bit Philip…the definition from 1297 doesn’t mention man or woman.
#20, that didn’t prove Phillip or myself to be “foolish bigots”.
“But then it is easy to just spit on a minority class of people isn’t it.”
No one is spitting on anyone. You are far too emotional to have a logical conversation, evidently.
#9: Too much emphasis on the sex act? The answer is, obviously, no, not too much emphasis. Let us leave the Bible aside for a moment. Sexual activity is at the core of all civilizations because it is at the core of all evolution. Evolution cares very little about Iraq, fiscal policy, the Red Sox or TEC. It does care about sex as the sole means of human reproduction. If homosexual sex were suddenly normative, there would be no human race. This means that all the emphasis we have seen so far is not too much. For the race, everything is at stake, all the time, when sexuality is the issue.
Is marriage therefore the issue when we speak of sexuality? Let us again leave the Bible aside. Then answer is of course it is the issue, for this bond, however stressed, needs to be maintained for the sake of successful reproduction and the raising of the children therefrom. The evidence is clear, over and over: Children do best with a mother and a father, and married people prosper physically and psychologically. Evolution has “worked out” this arrangement precisely because it works and works well. On the other hand, evolution clearly “intends” homosexuals to die childless. As far as evolution is concerned, homosexuals are discards. (Because of language’s limitations, I have made it sound as if evolution has deliberate intent, which it does not have. Its only rule is, what works.) Larry
Rolling Eyes, try to follow the discussion, okay? Prove it? Prove that marriage is not defined as only between a man and a woman. That was done. Prove that we live in 2007 and not prior to 1990…is that really necessary? Prove that you and Philip made some foolish bigoted statements in this discussion? Well, I’ll leave that to your own words.
[i]You are far too emotional to have a logical conversation, evidently. [/i] LOL
“Prove that marriage is not defined as only between a man and a woman.”
No, prove that anyone is being denied rights. That was what I asked. I did not ask you to prove that marriage is only defined as between a man and a woman.
While you’re at it, prove that you are capable of engaging in a conversation without resorting to personal insults and overly-emotional rhetoric.
“Try to follow the discussion, ok?” LOL
What a waste of time.
Durable Power of Attorney
Advanced Medical Directive
Will, Revocable Trust, Irrevocable Trust
Joint tenancy with right of Survivorship
Tenancy in Common
Partnership
Executor Of Estate
Life Insurance
All these legal instruments are available to anyone to convey real or personal property, provide accomodation and financial resources to those so named, select who will administer an estate or select who will make medical decisions for those unable to do so. Many ‘married couples’ fail to make these arrangements. Gay ‘couples’ can do this if they so choose.
BTW,
Been married for 37 years….working on 38. “until death do us part”…..I didn’t realize I was setting a goal!
LOL…just kidding. I love my honey!!!
Rollling Eyes, now, now! Go back to #16. Please see if you can keep up now. Or are you getting “too emotional” to be rational about the subject? LOL You have not followed the thread and you now decide what you want proof of is [i]anyone is being denied rights.[/i] Not what you asked but here’s the answer for you anyway:
According to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) which advocates for equal rights for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people, in 34 states, it is completely legal to fire someone from their job based on sexual orientation; in 44 states, it is legal to fire a transgender person. And with regard to marriage, only one state, Massachusetts, has granted marriage licenses to same-sex couples. 45 of the 50 states have laws either explicitly defining marriage as between a man and a woman or refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states. And, as many gay rights advocates have argued, civil unions are no substitute for the protections that straight couples get when they marry. A report from the federal government’s General Accounting Office lists more than 1,138 legal and financial protections granted to opposite-sex couples but denied to same-sex couples.
The HRC reports that the Family Medical Leave Act, a federal law granting 12 weeks of unpaid leave to allow someone to care for a spouse, does not apply to same-sex partners, since they are not recognized according to that law’s definition of “family.†Depending on the state and even the city, hospitals either will or will not let someone visit their same-sex partner when visits are limited to “family†only, or to allow someone to make decisions for their partner’s medical treatment. If someone in a same-sex couple dies, their partner may or may not have a right to inherit their property if there was no will, and might not get bereavement leave from their job.
When it comes to the right to have and raise children, same-sex couples have few, if any guarantees. Four states explicitly forbid lesbians and gay people from adopting children. If you are in a same-sex relationship and you and/or your partner have children from a previous relationship, or if you decide to become parents together, you enter another frightening patchwork of laws and regulations. Four states explicitly forbid the other half of a same-sex couple from adopting the child their partner has fathered or given birth to. And according to the HRC, in 27 states the right to do this is either “depending on the jurisdiction†or there is no clear precedent, which leaves couples in a frightening legal limbo. Even states that allow for gay or lesbian people to adopt their partner’s child have a myriad set of rules and prohibitions that make this very hard. Where these adoptions are not allowed, and one partner dies, children have been removed from what may be the only remaining parent they have ever known, and placed with their closest biological relatives, even if the child has never met these relatives before.
On the federal level, gays and lesbians are not allowed to sponsor their partner, or their partner’s children, for immigration purposes, and since they can’t get married, they have essentially no right to legally live with their partner in this country.
Dear Fred,
[blockquote] All this huffing and puffing about SEX from the reasserters makes me wonder why they are so obsessed about it? Too much emphasis on the sex act if you ask me. [/blockquote]
A question to someone with same-sex attractions who is also sexually active may help with this little accusation…
Given that the NT teaches that (a) all forms of homosexual sex are sinful and (b) that continuing in it will forfeit a place in the future Kingdom of God in the Age to Come… will you stop what you’re doing and repent of homosexual activity?
If your answer is anything other than ‘Yes’ – that makes you the one who is obsessed with sex.
Sorry – I should have de-personalised that last line.
It should read:
If the answer to the question is anything other than ‘Yes’ – that shows the respondent to be obsessed with sex, otherwise why not give it up for a place in the Kingdom?
#27: Yes, back to post #16. You responded to this:
“homosexuals already have equal marriage rights. Marriage is defined as one man and one woman. A homosexual man is free to marry any woman who will agree to it. Likewise a homosexual woman is free to marry any man that will agree to it.”
…by calling it “foolish bigotry”. I asked you in post #18 to prove that argument as “foolish bigotry”. So, you see, that is EXACTLY what I asked for. As a response, you gave me the American Heritage dictionary’s definition of marriage, which was NOT what I asked for. And yet, you still claim that I am unable to keep up with the thread. If you knew better, you should be a little embarrassed.
Rolling Eyes…keep trying LOL. You did notice that you jumped into the middle of the discussion w/ Philip don’t you? I’m sure he can speak for himself. Keep trying to make some sense of your comments though. Probably a good mental excercise for you.
I’m pretty bored with you though and will return to my novel.
revamundo, you are quite the literalist and fundamentalist, aren’t you. You won’t even look at the cultural setting for the definitions you cite. Can you show any marriage ceremony in the Church (prior to 1990) that binds in marriage two men or two women? The dictionary definitions assumed male and female, just as they assumed the limit of two persons – that has our cultural “norm” from before the founding of our country and for over 1000 years in England before than, 400 years in Rome and Constantinople before England, and for over 1400 years in Israel before Rome. Can you give evidence otherwise? Can you show me a Book of Common Prayer or sacramentary or liturgy that proports to bind two men or two women into a lifelong marriage? I can show greater scriptural support for polygamy than for homosexual marriage.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
In a plant that manufactures military tanks, the work station and process of joining of the hull and turret assemblies to form a complete and functional tank is called hull and turret marriage. Honest. Kind of hard to get two hulls or two turrets to fit together. If anybody even suggested that it be attempted and that the end result could be a functional tank, they would be viewed as some kind of nut case. Just a thought.
I read Revamundo long piece. Let us look at whether a company can fire a homosexual for that reason alone. The answer has to be yes, doesn’t it?
A public school (and a private one as well, I suppose) should be able to fire a homosxual teacher because of the risk, just as the Boy Scouts should be able to act likewise. The Roman Catholic Church should be able to dismiss homosexuals, obviously. In short there are jobs that shoould be able to fire or refuse to hire homosexuals because of their handicap. And this is the point: honosexuality is a serious handicap and should be treated that way. There are limitations on all handicaps, the more serious, the more limitations. Consider: I am very nearsighted. My driver’s license says that I cnnot drive without my glasses, so my handicap limits what I can do. A minor matter but relevant. If I were virtually blind, I could not get a license at all. Is either infraction of my civil rights? Surely not. And homosexuals are in the same situation. What Revam. and others like him will not admit is that they are severely handicapped and should be treated accordingly.
I understand that discussing this issue with R and his cohorts is not profitable, but my pooint above needs to me made until it really sinks in. LM
Let me take another look at the hiring and firing issue. Let’s forget homosxuality for a moment. Can a bank refuse to hire a teller because she is both fat and ugly? A teller is the bank’s daily face to the world and their established standards do not permit such a women to be the bank’s public face. Have they violated her civil rights? She can argue that it is not her fault she is obese and she can certainly argue that it is not her fault that she is ugly. If her civil rights are violated, must the bank hire her even though it knows that such a figure is bad for their business?
A man with a speech impediment applies to LLBean for a job as a customer service rep. His job is to take calls and orders. Can LLB refuse to hire him because his speech impediment makes him a poor CSR? Are his civil rights damaged by Bean’s decision?
A church has a convicted pedophile in its congregation. It refuses to allow him to work with children because the risk is too high. He says that his past is past, he has paid for it, and that he has changed his ways. The church still says no. Have his civil rights been violated? If the law says his civil rights have been violated, can it force the church to alter its decision? (This is not a case of making laws governing religion. The case is strictly civil.)
A some point, the handicapped (however defined) must accept limitations placed oon what we now call “our options,” which means of course the power to do whatever we want. LM
#33, isn’t that how we got the M113?
#33, LM: “I read Revamundo long piece. Let us look at whether a company can fire a homosexual for that reason alone. The answer has to be yes, doesn’t it?
A public school (and a private one as well, I suppose) should be able to fire a homosxual teacher because of the risk, just as the Boy Scouts should be able to act likewise. The Roman Catholic Church should be able to dismiss homosexuals, obviously. In short there are jobs that shoould be able to fire or refuse to hire homosexuals because of their handicap. And this is the point: honosexuality is a serious handicap and should be treated that way.”
Too rediculous for comment.
PadreWayne – I agree that workplace discrimination against homosexuals (or anyone) is wrong. Having said that, I would not want a homosexual leader for my son’s Boy Scout Troop any more than I would want a heterosexual male leading a Girl Scout Troop. Additionally, I believe that churches (and church schools) should be allowed to hire/fire whom they wish for whatever theological reason they wish. If a church believes that homosexual sex is immoral then it should be allowed to hire and retain people who agree with that teaching and to not hire/fire people who do not agree with it or live in contravention of it.
However, in secular employment, I believe that discrimination based on one’s sexual orientation or practices is wrong and should be punished.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
But 38, the Boys Scouts is secular employment. And see my other examples. Are they meaningless or is homosexuality is a special category? CAn a bank fire a teller because she becomes really obese, a condition that is contrary to the image the bank quite reasonably wishes to foster? Or a man who developes a serious tic of a sort that is bound to be annoying to the bank’s customers? Can a bank refuse to hire a man as night watchman when he tells them that he has been convicted of arson? Can a bar refuse to hire a bartender who has a history of alcoholism? The issue here in not simply homosexuality, afte all. LM
39 – I have no problem with a homosexual man or woman being employeed by the Boy (or Girl) Scouts of America. Having them as Scout Masters or scout leaders is a different situation. No I don’t think a bank should be able to fire a woman because she is obese. Can she count change correctly? Is she professional with the customers? Can she do her job? Those are the issues a bank should look for and the same issues any one should look for when hiring an employee. People with criminal records that impact their trustworthiness are not being discriminated against. But refusing to hire or firing based on looks, sexual orientation, race, creed, or anything else other than ability to do the job and work as part of the team is discrimination and is wrong. Churches are somewhat different because the “doing the job” part entails living up to the teachings of the Church.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
The Boy Scouts have already had this tested in court, and the courts said, yes, they have a right to NOT have a homosexual male leading a troop. Which is one reason the United Way in California voted to no longer fund this PRIVATE organization.
Library Jim – there is a difference between a Troop Leader and an employee of the Boy Scouts of America. Several years ago, I interviewed with BSA for a programming job. While being active in a Scout Troop was considered a plus for getting the job, it was not a requirement. At no time was I asked about my sexual orientation or my private life (except to ask about any participation in Scouting). The BSA does have the ability and right to discriminate on who its Troop Leaders are, but I do not believe it can discriminate on how its employees are. Troop Leaders serve without pay and are not employees – thus they are not subject to anti-discrimination laws.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
#42 YOu would find that the difference is not pay but whether you work directly with boys or not. If you were an employee and did work directlywith them, your secual preference would be inquired into. But that’s not the point. The point is that the court ha said that the Scouts may indeed discriminate. Why? Because the risk is so great from homosexuals and they are a private organization.
But can a bank dismiss a teller who has become truly obese? It certainly can because the image the teller presents damages the bank’s legitimate interest. It has set standards for tellers and they do not include obesity. Can it refuse to hire a woman who is genuinely ugly? It can, so I have been told, because this unfortunate woman would impair the bank’s relations with its customers. Can LLBean refuse to hire a Customer Service Representative with a perceptible speech impairment? Indeed they can, and they do.
Handicaps carry limitations and so they should, the liberal agenda notwithstanding. Homosexuality is a serious handicap and should carry limitations.
That Padre Wayne thinks this is nonsense is perfect evidence that it is not. LM
As I scrolled through this thread, something struck me that doesn’t seem to be emerging from the trees, more of a forest-level observation…
What does earthly bigotry, legal recourse, human weakness, discrimination, or abuse of the homosexual community have to do with the Salvific Position or definition of the act of Homosexual Sex as Sin (or not).
Seems to me that is the only issue. Either you see the Church’s traditional position on homosexual sex as binding or you don’t. All else is human speculation, not particularly persuasive.
Personally, if I am going to be subservient to God, and Scripture is the best illustration of His word and who He is I have, then unless someone can demonstrate clearly (repeatable scientific evidence that sexual preference is hard wired into us, this does NOT exist at present) that Scripture’s prohibitions are suspect, then I will follow them. If that following is accomplished, then I must love, embrace, accept all my LGBT brothers and sisters, but continue to view their partnerships as not matrimony and their sex acts as sinful.
Needless to say, I would not want someone who was that fuzzy on Christianity’s view of this issue to be baptizing or ordaining other Christians, lest that fuzzy view of Christianity be propogated and the error repeated.
If you want me to change the definition of sin, based on the fact that the early Church Fathers just didn’t know any better, then I will need something stronger than “I just feel it” or “I just know it” or “I’ve always been this way”.
And for goodness sake, do not insult our collective intelligence as orthodox by trying to place value on an idea or interpretation simply because it is chronologically current. Civilizations have fallen on such folly. Old ideas that endure typically do for a reason, i.e. they are correct and valuable. When it is time to cast them out, there has to be really good evidence that they were wrong in the first place. When I see that, we can talk again about discrimination and categories and bigotry and the like.
I had an interesting day yesterday, working the entire day with the most delightful and charming partnered gay woman, about my age, who is a model citizen and someone I felt blessed to be with the entire day. It was clear that we enjoyed each other’s company greatly and I have great respect for her. In my heart I felt sadness that Scripture teaches her relationship is disordered and unnatural, I was unhappy that whatever adjustments she has made to feel right with her life are condemned. I loved her as best I could in that moment, during that day, listening to her talk with great care about relocating her aging parents and the obvious care she had for them. Simply put, she was a delightful person and I thoroughly enjoyed her company. But my opinions are not what is at stake here. Her salvation, is. None of this was my idea, it was given to us by the best of authorities that I know, and none of my human sensibilities are authorized to change it.
I don’t always understand why, but that is not my decision, is it? WE don’t write, or unwrite. We obey, or we do not.
KTF!…mrb