Modern love

Thanks Rod. It's always nice to read good news about a couple committing to each other.

Sick, sick, sick. When I read things like this, I want to leave the country. Disgusting.

I read stories like that and smile. The feel good part of the smile is like all parents I want our children to experience a great relationship with a real committment to another. I would like our gay son to have the same kind of relationship we have. Just like I want our straight kids to do the same. The funny ha-ha part of the smile comes from knowing that all homosexuals come from straight sex. And no homosexuals are created with same sex sex. You have to love inclusiveness. It's so intelligent and heart warming.

"...no homosexuals are created with same sex sex." Doesn't that tell you something?

What I don't get is why all such heretics don't simply leave their traditionally Trinitarian denominations and simply go be Unitarian. Their theology is at heart probably more compatible anyway.

Y'know, thinking further -- note the assumption in the comments above that think this is a great thing. It's supposedly about mutuality, commitment, etc. Such comments reflect a modern, truncated view of "marriage" focused on individual fulfillment and 'happiness'. Marriage, on the other hand, has traditionally -- and should still -- involve the community, the family, and God. What's problematic is not so much that these men are gay. That's just the symptom. The disease is broader.

What I don't get is why all such heretics don't simply leave their traditionally Trinitarian denominations and simply go be Unitarian. Unitarian churches speak of God in the generic. It's not a Christian church. If you believe in the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit, and have accepted Jesus as your personal Savior, then you might find a Christian church to be a better fit. Why can't this marriage involve the community, family, and God?

Why can't this marriage involve the community, family, and God? I gather this was not a rhetorical question, so here goes: Because the ceremony was not a "marriage at all." Beyond that, it certainly does involve the community, family, and God. It offends God, ridicules the family God created, and brings well-deserved opprobrium upon the already beleaguered Episcopal community.

I am sorry, Rod, but I don't understand what particularly important point you're trying to make with this ho-hum lump of blog fodder? That the Episcopal church is a joke? Hey, that news is so yesterday, so ennui-inducing, that it's puzzling why you're bothering to mention it, yet one more eye-glazing-over time. Are you having case of writer's block perhaps and couldn't think of anything to say?

That should have been "Irenaeus" and "mighty". Maybe better advice would be: don't take screen name advice from a guy who calls himself "Insane Kitten"?

1 Corinthians 13:8-13 Love never fails. But where there are prophesies, they will cease; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child I talked like a child. I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. and now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. Luke 6:35-37 But to love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Paul was a great man. He was humble enough to admit that he knows in part.
In the meantime.... faith, hope, and love remain. Let's let Jesus judge the hearts of men/women.

Let's let Jesus judge the hearts of men/women. Nobody here is judging the hearts of men or women. However, I do judge their actions. And so does everyone who remains sane and doesn't want to open the jails and let rapists and thieves out. This debate is over what actions our culture is going to judge as wrong, even when they are consensual acts. Like homosexual acts. Like prostitution. Like polygamy. Like age of consent. The "let Jesus judge the hearts of men" and "love makes the world go round" adds zero to the discussion at hand, which is: are homosexual acts wrong. It's debatable point for any culture - but not for any Christian who follows the bible.

Kevin: "You can make soap from human fat and lampshades from human skin too. Simply because we may have the ability to do a certain thing, it does not logically follow that it is necessarily right and good to do that thing." Oh yes, we couldn't do this properly without a reference to the Shoah, could we? Good grief. For gay people attempting to lead normal lives (i.e., not just practicing celibacy for the heck of it), the Episcopal Church is the closest thing to traditional Christianity they have. Considering that the validity of the Anglican Communion's Apostolic Succession is dubious in the minds of most Catholic and Orthodox Christians, I fail to understand the interest of so many in their affairs.

M_David "... the discussion at hand, which is: are homosexual acts wrong"... or... perhaps the discussion at hand is more about how some persons are trying to force onto others their Myths which include the opinion that homosexual acts are wrong... if you think it's "wrong"... then don't engage in such acts... perhaps the discussion at hand is also about how some persons are judging the consensual acts of others done in private... or at least how some persons are claiming to actually speak for God when they deem such acts as "wrong"... I think that claiming to speak for God is worse than engaging in consensual homosexual acts... faith hope love joy peace to all...

a. First of all, the linked article above notes that the sperm cells are immature, further research is needed, and even if research is allowed to continue because of legal restraints, it will be about 5 years before the process will be working- if it does work. b. We don't have to speculate about what offends God, as scripture spells out both offense and forgiveness pretty clearly.

Erin:
I'm sure you wouldn't like anyone to disparage the Catholic priest(s) responsible for your conversion to Catholicism, on the grounds that you went on to leave the Church. That one of the people mentioned in the announcement you link to trained at a conservative seminary shouldn't be held against the seminary, in my view, unless they were aware of his heterodox views and practices at the time but ordained him anyway, which is hardly something one can infer from the announcement itself. I'm not blaming Nashotah House, Erin, just noticing that one of the priests in this couple graduated from there. It reminded me of the so-called "Daughters of Trent" phenomenon in the Catholic Church, in which gay priests embrace the smells and bells and ritual formality of old-style Catholicism, which unsuspecting laymen think somehow is insulated from actively gay priests. A very wise Father who was once a vocations director warned me that conservative Catholics often make the mistake of thinking that professed orthodoxy, liturgical or otherwise, is a guarantee against sexual disorder in the clergy. Anyway, without more information, it would be preposterous to hold Nashotah House at fault for the fate of one of its graduates.
Secondly, to answer some other complaints, I put this post up because by any conceivable measure, that "wedding" announcement is an extraordinary sign of the times. You have two clergymen of the most Establishmentarian church in the country getting "married" by a clergywoman of their own church -- and announcing the ceremony in the wedding pages of the nation's leading newspaper. Whether you consider that a sign of decline or progress is another question, but let's knock off the nonsense that this is not sociologically significant.
Good luck to +Rowan trying to hold it all together. I think this wedding announcement shows why that effort is doomed to fail.

I think it's interesting that many people who are offended by Christian "judgmentalism" offer as justification that God is loving and forgiving -- He wouldn't condemn something that makes people happy because He represents faith hope love etc. But when you study all other faiths in depths, you realize that only the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible claims to be loving or shows any genuine evidence of it. And this is the same God who says that homosexuality -- and murder, and gossip, and divination, and cheating people -- are wrong. These people, with a lack of intellectual integrity, are picking and choosing whichever aspects of God please them and ignoring those that don't. I struggle with this too, but there is no question that the same God who says He yearns over us and loves us and laid down His life for us is the God who claims the right to state what is right and what is wrong. I agree with the poster above who suggested that people who cannot in faith accept the God of the Bible refrain from calling themselves Christians. Ian MacEllan (Spelling?), a homosexual, himself stood up for the type of integrity I'm advocating. A person calling himself a Christian wrote into his website and told the actor how much he supported his homosexuality. MacEllan snapped back that this man shouldn't support homosexuality if he claims to be a Christian. While I don't agree with MacEllan, I respect his honesty and intelligence much more than the "tolerant" commenter.

I think it's interesting that many people who are offended by Christian "judgmentalism" offer as justification that God is loving and forgiving -- He wouldn't condemn something that makes people happy because He represents faith hope love etc. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that it's in the heart and heterosexuals/mankind doesn't know enough about it to make a proper judgment. Those who condemn it may be right. I think that they are wrong. Homosexuality is at the core of a person's being. It's in the heart. Only God is to judge. It's between a homosexual and God.

"love your gay neighbor as yourself"... Just as I would not want myself to fall into disordered sex, I don't want my gay neighbor to fall into it as well. Hence, I am opposed to offering him public permission and approval for what is disordered and harmful to his soul. I would hope that he would return the favor and not call me homophobic or intolerant or use the coercive power of the state to instruct my children of his "normalcy." I would hope that my gay neighbor would love his socially conservative neighbor as himself.

You are reducing a homosexual person to an act. No I'm not. We've been through this. I'm talking only about acts here. By your analysis, if I claim a murderer is wrong, I'm somehow "reducing" him to an act. Pah. Homosexuality and heterosexuality is in the heart. Marriage and public acceptance of it (what we are taking about) is NOT in the heart. It's in our face. So how about we stop speaking for God and start speaking for ourselves. Because these two people are married in (what used to be) a Christian church, and one is a pastor. God and Christian belief is very much on topic here. Prostitution hurts other people. Whatever argument you make for willing, legally controlled prostitution "hurting people", I can make the same claim for gay people (who have more health issues a lower life expectancy on average, plus have been the primary vector for AIDS into the hetrosexual community). It's one of the reasons homosexuals create such a "yuck" factor among the average person - it's unhealthy. Oh, and I noticed you dropped polygamy from the list of social ills. Hard to argue against, no? It doesn't hurt people any more than regular marriage does. Gotta let love do its thing.

The best way to respond to all of this is to smile, pray for those two men and their church that is lost in heresy and error, and continue to mind our own business. We must stand up for truth, but we should do so without anger, without scoffing, and without resentment and fear. Rather, we should do so with detached love, and then our enemies will have nothing to say against us. I really think that we exacerbate the venom spewed against us when we lash out, frothing at the mouth, in anger. If we take a more passive, loving, yet still truthful approach, then "coals shall be heaped on their head." I do feel sad for those traditional Christians in the Anglican communion who have to put up with this. On the other hand, having a place for modernist, revisionist people to go, may not be a bad idea. I'd much rather have all of the heretics in the Episcopal Church, than have them in my Church trying to destroy my tradition. I pray that all Christians in the west will return to Holy Orthodoxy, the only saving truth.

Sigilaris, Thanks for your thoughful post in response to mine. I guess I would critique heterosexuals for having a truncated view of marriage as well. It sounds to me like you and I have different starting points; you are seeing what people actually do nowadays ("Is there some other reason than happiness why people get married today? [my paraphrase]), where I am thinking in terms of a theory/theology of marriage. You're saying why *do* folks get hitched, and I'm saying why *should* folks get hitched. And, I guess at root, you and I would disagree about the chief ends of human beings. It sounds to me like you suppose happiness to be a (the) chief good, where I think "happiness" (as defined in modern terms) is somewhat facile, superficial. I think the chief end of humans is to be Good, and then we have to ask the question: how do we know the good? At root, you and I have different worldviews, and I think that's something that's irresolveable. I guess my worldview is shaped by the Augustinian tradition, in which marriage is a gift of God given to all people (Christian and non-Christian) for the purposes, among other things, of propagating the race and reflecting the very nature of God (Cf. Ephesians ch. 5). I guess I also hope it's about more than happiness, for happiness in marriage is often fleeting and ephemeral. It's about commitment to each other, about agape (gift love) more than eros (need love), and happiness to me seems to center on eros and self-fulfillment as opposed to the other-centered gift love that marriage involves and requires. Sorry this is a bit convoluted; I'm tired this morning having been up late, but I thank you again for your thoughtful post.

I will point out the simple truth that if one's sexuality--gay, straight, or otherwise--is at the core of one's being, that is a profoundly disordered state of being. Agreed. But that's our mainstream culture, post-Freud.

I think the news of thsi marriage will be of special interest to the Global South of the Anglican Communion. It will confirm their strong suspicion that the Episcopal Chucrh has gone totally mad. If conservative Episcopalians in the US can unite under Global South bishops(and this in an if; Episcopalians have a lamentable Protestant tendency to fragmentation), they will strengthen the influence of the Global South on the US. This, as Philip Jenkins keeps saying, is very big news.

If it's disorderd to place one's sexuality at the core of one's being, how do you explain the ideas of John Paul II in Theology of the Body who writes that the call to self-gift, exemplified in the nuptial meaning of the body, is the meaning of human existence? Being created male and female is a huge part of being made in the image and likeness of God. Our sexuality is immensely important - in fact there are no vocations that don't draw on it. Married life or celibacy, both are intrinsically tied to sexuality. I think it's a too-simple answer to just chalk it up to our post-Freud culture.

@Richard Barrett: Can you say more about what you perceive as the "inverse relationship between liturgical and doctrinal conservativeness", e.g. why you think that is? It certainly does not seem that way in e.g. the Catholic church, nor from what little I know among the Orthodox. Does it have anything to do with doctrinally conservative people/parishes/clergy being more immigrant/nonwhite than the "mainstream"?

Excuse me folks, but I find this topic's turn hilarious if not at least funny, funny peculiar, along with funny ha-ha. The same folks screaming the loudest about the decline of society because of the obsession with sex by the media are the same ones obsessed with sex. One of the truly enlightening things in my life came when I was confronted for the thirty zillionth time by a righteous wrong with "do you ever think about what they do?" concerning my gay son. DOH! No. Yup, no. I don't think about his sexual activity just like I don't think about the sexual activity between my daughters and their husbands or my straight son and his wife. I find it ignorant to worry about my gay son and his sex any more than I do my daughters and theirs. Excuse me. But sex is what you make of it. That is expecially true of other people's sex. The porn industry has made at least a billion kazillion dollars exhibiting other people's sex. The romance novel industry has made almost as much talking about it in girlish kinds of ways. And let's not forget the religions, if we removed other people's sex from their list of topicology they'd be left with sweet silence. Everyone here who is in a committed relationship, even if they're married into it, will admit that sex is a part of that relationship. But none of us believe that it's the tie that binds. It's not the one thing that if removed from the relationship would guarantee it's demise. If for some ungodly reason a medical disaster occured and it was no longer practical for the sex to be there it would be missed. But the relationship would survive because it's not about our sex. Yet everyone here seems to feel that no one else shares that basic humanity. They see the gays and lesbians only being together because of the sex. They see a stone gorgeous big boobed blond with an average looking fella and they figure he's got be rich or she wouldn't be with him. And the only reason he's with her is for the boobs and her being a trophy. The reason the media aka, Hollywood, gets to make so much money off of sexual exploitation is because the righteous have made sex magic. It's divine design and it's magic because it makes babies and God made it oh so good. Everyone comes out of puberty disappointed because it was short of magic. It must be something about them that it wasn't magic. So they go looking for the magic, Hollywood tries to privide support for the illusion their righteous parents initiated. Our children learn how to value or react to things by our example. This is especially true of sex because it is one of the most confusing aspects of our lives. When they see parents giving sex even more power than it naturally has by their actions and reactions they in turn will treat sex as more powerful, magical, than they should. You take these idiots, sorry, the only word I can use here that even begins to fit, these idiots, that do the virgin thing with their daughters. They're the same yo-yos who tell they're daughters that they're cute and encourage the girl to grow up believing her value is in her looks. Jeez. It's just sex. It has it's place. That place is as a bonding unit between two people who love and care about each other enough to risk intimacy.

You take these idiots, sorry, the only word I can use here that even begins to fit, these idiots, that do the virgin thing with their daughters. Idiots? So we're idiots for teaching our children (daughters AND sons) to remain celibate until marriage? Did you happen to notice that that is one of the Ten Commandments of our faith? Your anti-Christian bigotry is showing.

Idiots? So we're idiots for teaching our children (daughters AND sons) to remain celibate until marriage? Did you happen to notice that that is one of the Ten Commandments of our faith? Your anti-Christian bigotry is showing. fbc I'm sorry. I don't see anything in there but people worshipping celibacy while celebrating sex. Or is it worshipping sex while celebrating celibacy?
Celibacy is about opportunity a lot more than it is about character. If you really want to keep your kids celibate, pray they're ugly as ugly can be.

M_David, I'm going by the evidence. If it was so good then people wouldn't be searching so hard for better nor comparing what they've experienced with what everyone else might be doing.

In my youth, the arguments against gayness came down to 1) "they have to recruit to reproduce" which struck me as uniquely odd. Why on earth would "they" want to reproduce people who suffered as much rejection and shame as they did? Not to mention that, as we all know too well, pedophilia is not a function of sexual orientation. Well, not hetero vs homo. And 2) "they" are promiscuous. Well, these guys are apparently trying not to be.
Seems to me that those who fear gayness would appreciate the gays who live together and marry openly. You know who they are so you can keep your kids away from them, and they are trying to stay faithful - at least as faithful as hetero-married folks. However well that has been working out. At least the religious argument makes sense to me. You believe God is against it. That is exactly why your argument must not be allowed to impact the civil law in this arena. Let your churches decide who will and will not marry gay people. Let the civil marriage work for those gay people who want the many privileges that can only come through marriage. Let God sort out the afterlife business.

fbc, Help me out here. Which one of the Ten Commandments are you referencing?

umm - 'them" being the rabble, not the virginal daughters. Sorry for any confusion.

"Celibacy is about opportunity a lot more than it is about character. If you really want to keep your kids celibate, pray they're ugly as ugly can be." This has got to be one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard in my life! First of all, I don't know of much of anyone who actively wishes that their children be celibate. Some (and if I ever have children, I'll be one of them) wish that their children will be happy in following God's will, whatever that may be - including celibacy as one possibility. Second, I don't know how many priests, monks, and nuns you know, but as a Catholic I come into contact with a fair number of them, and they run the usual gamut of human appearances. I've seen short priests, tall priests, fit priests, fat priests, beautiful nuns, nuns from bad movie flashbacks to days in Catholic schools, and so forth. God calls all manner of people, from movie-star gorgeous to singularly unattractive, to serve Him in the monastery, the convent, or at the altar. I really don't see any great correlation between looks and celibate vocations. (oh, but if you mean that unattractive people are more often single than attractive ones, be assured that being single and being celibate are different things - single is when you'd like to be dating/married but are having some rough luck, whereas celibate is where you give up sex as part of a vocation to the service of God)

Harvey: "Jeez. It's just sex." Here is a beautiful essay that utterly refutes the sentiment "it's just sex." Sex has consequences -- for good and for bad (and if we're lucky, as the people in this essay were, redeemed).

You believe God is against it. That is exactly why your argument must not be allowed to impact the civil law in this arena. This is a good example of the insanity afoot among the secular left. They are willing, even eager, to toss all of human history into the ashcan in order to take up some faddish new theory arising from their supposedly deep inner feelings, and anyone who points out that perhaps all the generations before our own had it right is castigated for trying to bring his private, personal beliefs into the public arena. There is no argument that can be made against these people since they are impervious to reason. It's just a power struggle with them, and they will only be stopped when they are overwhelmed with superior force.

Franklin: Rod, am I crazy to point out the, ahem, name similarity between the article author and the person in this thread to whom you address you post just above? Nope, just observant. Harvey did a beautiful thing for his daughter, and told a great and edifying story about it. Still, sex is never "just sex." I saw what a lie that was before I was a religious believer.

Still, sex is never "just sex." I saw what a lie that was before I was a religious believer. Rod Dreher I don't say that to encourage promiscuity. I'm against promiscuity because I see it as destructive on many levels. But I believe the right way to discourage promiscuity isn't "because I and my God say so." The right way is to have enough respect for others to give them the truth about sex and promiscuity. Churches aren't likely to do it. And it isn't in Hollywood's best interest to do it. Churches and Hollywood share the need to use sex to sell their product. Churches preach how nasty it is and Hollywood show it's fun. Both are wrong. And for the same reason. It's just sex.

Well, with two daughters, 24 and 14, I believe I can see both sides of the coin. For example, I made a vow -- repeated aloud when #1 reached an age to appreciate it -- to never be a jealous father. I recognized the potential in me to basically ruin my daughter's social life with boys. But she and I (and, soon, #2 and I) both are conscious of what the real issue is: trust. That's where I find the abstinence-only mindset to fail, because it makes two statements: we know what is best for our children at every point of their lives (we don't trust them to grow up); we see our children as incapable of learning to make sane and rational decisions (we don't trust them to learn). Doesn't matter if the statements are what is intended, or if they are even true. The message is clear. So, I ask rhetorically, what's wrong with the following message: Waiting to have sex is a good thing, because maturity comes with time and experience. For me, it covers trust in both ways. I trust my daughters to see themselves and their level of maturity; I trust them to make decisions based on a clear understanding of consequences; and I trust them to trust me and their mother, and that we actually do know what we are talking about. Then, when they do make decisions, they are much less likely to make mistakes, and when they do make mistakes, they learn from them. So, I think the message is more than just God doesn't like it; I think it's also God doesn't trust you. That is not a message I want my children to think is important to their self-image.

I am neither secular (Buddhist) nor particularly leftist. I consider myself spiritual and moderate. The history of marriage has much to do with property and inheritance. Now that children have become expensive, thanks to the urbanization of society and the triumphs of capitalist materialism (celebrated by the Repubs no less than the Dems, as Rod pointed out in CC) rather than a form of wealth, the emphasis of many marriages has changed from raising children to personal happiness. I'm not saying it is a great thing, just that it has happened. Given that, what can possibly justify not giving gay members of society the same rights vis a vis civil marriage? Childless couples still get to have marriages. I would never want the government to tell churches who to marry, any more than I want the churches telling the government who should be able to have civil marriages. Franklin and Harvey - always great to read your posts! Touching story, Harvey.

Whew. If this thread is not a frightening example of the death of the West, what is it?
Can you say...Benedict Option?

Yes, Harv, Joe "Father of Jessica" Simpson is every Christian father's ideal of how to regard and educate one's daughter in the virtue of purity. And the Church teaches that all sex is dirty. And purity is solely a matter of maintaining the hymen intact. Honestly, man, where do you get these ideas?? Rod Dreher Blessed I guess. I mean I look around me and see so many people that are math challenged. They keep putting two and two together and seeing three or five.

Elizabeth, there's a post script to the story of my daughter. The little boy in the story will be three next month. And they have a little girl whose birthday is just a week off from the birthday of the little girl in the story. Well, a week plus eleven years. My daughter is still one of my heroes.

Damaris, thank you for the kind and respectful reply. I am aware that some faithful believe like you do. But the bulk of your faith don't see the Commandments as optional. May I ask why you elimated "Islamic" from the Judeo-Christian-Islamic phrase? They have the same God, the same Abraham, the same Heaven, and of course, the same Hell.

"Whew. If this thread is not a frightening example of the death of the West, what is it? " It all has to do with the lens you look through. The death of the West is a foregone conclusion, as is the death of whatever empire follows (my current bet is on China- if they don't destroy their environment first), the eco-system and the entire planet. Nothing in the material or social world is permanent. Conservatives know that better than most. Or should. But many of them have signed on to a version of American exceptionalism that should have been set aside "when I put away childish things." Now, in the mean time, we need to establish the rule of law, and under the current administration that means starting with the federal government, as a model the rest of the world could admire. It might have worked out better if we had chosen more prudently how to respond to the attacks in 2001, shining as a beacon of reason and hope (both are necessary) instead of following a course sure to inflame the Muslim world.
To my mind, the rule of law must trump religious particulars in civil matters. When religion becomes the government - well, history is replete with examples, including the ongoing mess in Iran and Afghanistan. The announcement of a gay wedding in the NYTimes hardly ranks up there in the top 10 list of worst things that have happened to the West lately.

Cleveland, I'm not sure I understand when you say, ...Darwin gave society the excuse it needed to see sex as the Pagans saw it. I'm not sure I follow you here. Darwin's natural selection ideas make the claim all animals, humans included, compete with their own kind for life. In other words, sex is all about having as many successful kids as possible. Most pagans felt otherwise; they used sex for pleasure primarily, and for kids only when it benefited their personal well being. Hence the cultural history of infanticide and abortion among pagans to have sex without kids that Christians fought (and fight) against. I guess I see Darwin's theories as a scientific proof of God's natural law, bolstering Christian teaching. Sort of like how physics finally came around to the Christian view of a creation of time and matter with the Big Bang theory and fully rejected the pagan views of a cyclical, always-existing universe.

There are two strains Anglo-Catholicism. One is libertine and rather Tridentine. The other is doctrinally and morally conservative, and rather Tridentine. Nashotah House served adherents of both because that's where you learned Roman liturgics. "Dress like Mother and be called Father" is a common barb directed at that seminary.
Richard Barrett observed that most high church parishes are liberal, and that's probably true, now. I'm guessing that the vast majority of conservative Anglo-Catholics have fled to Orthodoxy or to Rome over the last 40 years, leaving their libertine brethren to carry the torch of "proper ritual." Or maybe I'm just speaking for myself.

what "all human history" are us secular lefties tossing out that hasn't been proven a failure over and over again? Marriage as a relationship between a MAN and a WOMAN has hardly been proven a failure. What has been proven a failure are the weird experiments in lust that the lefties have been substituting for the marital bond since the days of "make love, not war." The victims, sadly, have been mostly innocent children.

But, Franklin, surely you recognize that your answer begs the question: by what example or whose example do we teach?
Jesus is the 'only authority' precisely because he's the only true source of an objective code of moral values. As far as "why did all the non-JCI cultures last as long as they did?", I can only answer: meet any Visigoths lately?

Starrs, have you met any Buddhists or Hindus lately?

tovart, To those who express concern for "the children" (theirs or generally) how will you address that concern if one of your children turns out to be homosexual? I'm at a loss here. Is your implication that if one opposes homosexual acts for a homosexual child, they are bad, or what exactly are you saying?

Yes, tovart, many. But you'll note that Franklin's comment is in the past tense, implying civilizations dead and gone.
M_David, I won't disagree with your observation about Darwin, but what do you say to the many modern atheists who take Darwin as the end-all-and-be-all of existence? But I do take issue with Freud and Nietzsche as good source material: they are two of the most widely discredited minds ever.

Someone above quoted the Romans 1 passage...I fail to see why Romans 1 should be used as a club against gays...the divorce rate among "Christian" people are every bit as unlovely I quoted Rom 1. This passage was not used as a "club" against gays. It was to show (to all but the most obtuse) that the bible firmly and clearly states that homosexual acts are wrong. Divorce? It is also wrong according to the bible. So what? This is not a "who's the biggest sinner, gays or straights" contest.

This never goes anywhere. Christians will NEVER accept homosexuality, and homos will NEVER accept Christianity. So what's new?

"With much respect, your response to my somewhat rhetorical question is semantically null." Franklin Evans Franklin, I don't know what "semantically null" means. But, that's OK because my response was still logical, truthful, informative and responsive. If you took it to heart, it would change your life for the better.:-) ----------------------------------
"Darwin made no such claim [of atheism]. He was an agnostic, never an atheist." M_David M_David, I don't believe he was an agnostic. His ORIGIN OF SPECIES succeeded in his effort to undermine faith in a Creator, i.e., we are merely a chemical accident; a blind process of natural selection which obviates a Creator and thus any significant morality. It is my firm understanding that, early in life, he discarded what little Protestant faith he may have had to begin with. As he grew older, he became increasingly hostile to faith. Some thought he was a Christian, but it was just an act. To him, his theory of evolution and Creation could not both be true. (Later, that apparent conflict promoted atheism among the educated and the poor alike).
Darwin was a philosophical materialist long before ORIGIN. His private notebooks, not published until the 1970s, contain comments about how the human mind, morality, and belief in God are just products of the brain's chemistry. In 1873, he wrote in a notebook: "I have lately read Morley's LIFE OF VOLTAIRE and he insists strongly that direct attacks on Christianity (even when written with the wonderful force and vigor of Voltaire) produce little permanent effect: real good seems only to follow the silent side attacks." A strong antipathy toward faith was a hallmark of his friends and of the male Darwin's (Whigs--what else is new?) for two generations before his birth. The Tory establishment and its faith was being pushed aside at that point. One of his Grandfathers (Erasmus) was an agnostic, I'll grant you, but even he wrote endlessly about how society should abandon religion and find nourishment instead in "the milk of science". Darwin's father was an atheist and Freemason. Charles later wrote that what his father thought was "absolutely true, right, and wise." Gertrude Himmelfarb wrote that Charles's disbelief was natural and acceptable. M_David, you are not alone in your belief that Darwin was an agnostic, but I believe it's clear that he became an atheist early on and that his father counseled him on how hide his atheism. But, my friend, who cares. My point still stands: Darwin--whether agnostic or atheist-- gave society the excuse it needed to cast aside the Judeo-Christian concept of sexual morality. Marx and Freud complete the unholy three in this regard. Even though atheistic Marxism is now all but dead, and Freud largely discredited, our enlightened class still has its roots --Darwin's atheistic evolution known as natural selection.

My point still stands: Darwin--whether agnostic or atheist-- gave society the excuse it needed to cast aside the Judeo-Christian concept of sexual morality. cleveland Shouldn't that be Judeo-Islamic-Christian concept of sexual morality? After all, the Islamics are the last leg of the perfect stool still enforcing the patriarchial position on sexual inequality.

harvy, if we are not innately evil, at least in the sense of concupiscence, where does all the evil we do come from? From under a rock? Obviously, evil comes from us because we ARE innately capable of evil. And that, harvy, proves you are just as naturally ignorant as we all are. We all need education, and since you have chosen to ignore six thousand years of learning from very costly experience, I wish you luck. cleveland Numbers 31: 13And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
14And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
15And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
16Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Think about that bro cleveland. Think about ordering your soldiers to slaughter thousands of children and women prisoners of war. And it has to be done with knives and swords, up close and personal. If the Israelis tried this today the only ones supporting them would be folks like yourself. Gawd Almighty

Harvey -- Going back a ways to your question about "Islamic." I didn't include that because my understanding of Islam is that love and an internal, spiritual motivation towards a godly life are less emphasized. I've lived as a religious and racial minority in muslim countries for almost a decade and talked with many muslims. "Islam" itself means submission, and to many purist muslims saying that God is Love is presumptuous and comes close to negating God's holiness. I acknowledge that Islam is a monotheistic religion developing partly from Judeo-Christian roots, but in this area -- the calling to live by grace and not by the Law, or edicts -- I think Islam is different from the religions of the Book. I don't want you to think that I think the 10 Commandments are optional. Rather I interpret them according to Jesus' words: first, love God and love your neighbor, and second, outward obedience is worth nothing if the heart is corrupt. (Matthew 22:37-40, and Matthew 5:17-30) While none of us live up to the standard set for us, this is what I believe true Christianity is.

OFF TOPIC SORT OF: Rod (ironically) wrote: "Joe 'Father of Jessica' Simpson is every Christian father's ideal of how to regard and educate one's daughter in the virtue of purity..."
For those who think this thread is a great example of the decline of the West, go download Arcade Fire's Springsteenesque ballad "(Antichrist Television Blues") for a fantastic take on the "Christianity" of Joe Simpson as a symbol of the decline of the West.

Franklin, I do believe that the Christian vision is the superior one; indeed, I believe that it is the only one that fully answers the human predicament. Having said that, I also believe that it is wrong to attempt to implement that vision by violence or coercion. Frankly, I don't believe that some sort of neo-paganism will become ascendant, but if it does, I think Christians could 'cooperate' with it to the extent that it wouldn't require us to reject our own beliefs and practices. I'm not sure how far that would go, however, given the nature of today's 'soft totalitarianism,' which says, "accept diversity and tolerance, or else..." Whenever Christians buck an anti-Christian system they will be persecuted; Christ promised it, and history bears it out. I'm not sure about your last paragraph. It seems you are saying that the sheer notion of holding that one's vision is superior, and saying so, is inherently violent. If that is what you're saying I reject it. But I could be reading you wrong.

"Naturally, those who are convinced either rationally or emotionally are not victims of violence." Yes, just wanted to make sure you weren't saying otherwise, as there are some who do. And again, we're agreed that such 'convincing' should not use any sort of coercion.

Franklin, I don't equate survival with success. Cheers.

Starrs, ...what do you say to the many modern atheists who take Darwin as the end-all-and-be-all of existence? They need to read what Darwin actually wrote. But I do take issue with Freud and Nietzsche as good source material... Good source material for what atheisim has to offer. They, unlike Darwin, makes the argument that God doesn't exist.

And while we're at it: And would that be a reflection -- on whom?
The two gay guys who got married inspite of all the children who should never ever have been privy to the fact that homosexuality is one aspect of human condition; or Your parenting; Biology; Darwin; or that some gifts from God are just different from some ideal?

Buck0, one of the rationals I used to come up with the idea of no God was the observation that the Gods I was introduced to were individual specific. Each and every one was designed for that individual. Revealing to me that man was designing God and not vice versa. Mean spirited people have mean spirited Gods. Open and giving people share that trait with their Gods. I personally believe the popularity of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions is the availability of such wide variety of Gods to choose from in those faiths. Good people can find support for their goodness there. Bad people can find the evil they wish on others there too. Faith truly is like Paul said, "things hoped for." Congrats on your success at relationshipping. Most of your critics are failures at their own. It's like Tom Delay talking about his own adultery as being less aggregious than Bill Clinton's or Knute's.

You tell 'em, buck0. That was a very moving description of what marriage is all about, and as one 30+ years married person to another, I salute you. Today is our 36th wedding anniversary. We look quite conventional on the outside, but on the inside, we are not, and the times when we've tried hardest to behave in a conventional manner are the times we've been least happy and least ourselves. In our long history, we've had the oh-so-helpful assistance of many good folk who have taken the trouble to let us know how wrong we are for not adhering to their version of what we should be. Even though we have four children, love each other with faithful, saving love, and are each other's mainstay and that of our extended family, it's not good enough because we didn't get there by following their rules. The difference between us and you is that no matter how much people are irritated by our attitude, they can't deny we're married. You are not granted that respect, and that's not right. It makes me very angry. However, I take comfort in the fact that marriage is a sacrament that is given by the participants. The priest witnesses. He doesn't perform it. Thus, if we assume the existence of a God, we can likewise assume God has blessed you to the fullest extent possible--as God always prefers to do when we don't get in the way. So I say God bless us all, and many happy years to you and your partner!

And God bless you and your partner, buckO, and all the good people who love.