The "Radical Gay Agendaâ„¢" Explained

[Haven]

Many members of America's Religious Right and religious conservative communities across the world are concerned about the effect the Radical Gay Agendaâ„¢ may have on society. As a gay person, I want to clarify a few things about this Agendaâ„¢ and explain what most TLGBQ people (like with any community, not all queer people want the same things -- this list just explains what most of us want) desire from society. I'll also debunk a few nefarious myths.

The "Radical Gay Agendaâ„¢" -- What We Want:

1. The same civil rights as anyone in society. This includes the right to get married, adopt children, enter any public establishment, visit our loved ones in hospitals, enter spaces appropriate for our gender identities, and not face discrimination in employment. Right now, TLGBQ people can be denied marriage and family rights, fired, or even arrested simply because of our sexual or gender identities.

2. Freedom from violence or verbal assaults based on our sexual orientations or gender identities. TLGBQ people in general--and especially gay men and lesbians of color and all trans women--face a disproportionate number of violent assaults, "corrective" rapes, and even murders compared to the straight, cisgender population.

3. Acceptance and inclusion within society, in the same way as any other minority group. This includes, but is not limited to, the marginalization of anti-gay hate speech and anti-gay "education" in schools, and
visibility within society.

Myths about the "Agendaâ„¢"

1. We're not after your kids. There is no nefarious gay plot to recruit children into the "homosexual" or "transsexual" "lifestyle." We do want kids who are born gay, bi, lesbian, trans*, or asexual to be supported by their families and society, though, and not be driven to suicide by intolerant / hateful parents or peers.

2. We're not after your churches or mosques. Most gay people don't care what religious people believe about homosexuality, as long as those beliefs don't translate into discriminatory public policies or public acts of harassment, violence, or terrorism.

3. We don't want to take over the world. I mean, puh-lease! There is no plan to institute "gay authority" on the rest of the planet. We just want to be treated like everyone else.

Debate question: is this "Agendaâ„¢" reasonable? Is it evil? Why or why not?

[bluethread]

Arguably, there is no law regarding human sexuality, only Law governing relationships and righteousness. Any Early Church canon regarding sex came from the Roman government, culture. The Early Church simply did not have reason to address human sexuality. The Synod of Elvira, if I am not mistaken, is the first establishment of Canons within the Church, approximately 305. Gregory the Great was pope from c. 540 - 12 and with his Moralia of Job the Church began recognizing sex as the gateway to sin. Anything about sex before Gregory the Great was Roman (Not Catholic). Roman law had great regards for what the definition of a man was. What changed Roman law was the issue of the rights of Eunuchs as, they were consistently apart of the Roman Courts and aristocracy.

Christians today want their perceptions and doctrine to be God's doing but historically such pretended precepts do not, never existed.

Leviticus was about Israel's constitution. The sin regarding, what today's Christians want to believe, was not about homosexuality (as is evidenced by the modern definition of homosexuality) because, as with your question regarding male-male sex and, female-female sex, was never the concern within Leviticus. Idolatry was the concern. What was mixed was the concern. I don't lightly tread on Christianity when I make this sort of a statement. I look deep into the true meaning of each Hebrew, Greek and English word that represents for Christianity what Christianity is all about. The truth is startling.

Without an exhausting reply riddled with biblical quotes and exegesis relating to the truth, I am prepared to do so, with historical facts as well as biblical references.

It is said that no one person can possibly absorb all that has been revealed in the past century regarding the OT and the NT. The deeper I get in my research the more in depth the corroboration becomes, the more fluent is the message of the Bible. Like my statement regarding St. Augustine above or in previous reply, from St. Aujustine to Gregory the Great's Moralia of Job, it is very clear that St. Augustine's disordered love predominates. More to the point, the OT spoke of what was in the heart as well as Jesus in the NT. These are the same points as St. Augustine and Gregory the Great but, modern Christianity forces the condemnation of homosexuality instead of the true message of the heart.

One must ask, "Why does Christianity hide the true meaning of the Gospel?"

As I stated, I have no interest in arguing RCC/protestant doctrine. The concept of what is now called "gender identity" is off the radar in the Tanach. The only sexual relationship that it approves of is male/female matrimonial and there is a good amount of detail in HaTorah regarding the nature of that relationship. The reason Paul refers to other relationships is because he is acclimating people from hedonist cultures to Torah culture. The fact that sex was part of the theistic rites of those cultures does not limit the teaching to just sexual theistic rites. It only adds another dimension to their not being recognized as acceptable in a Torah submissive society.

[Eternity]

Arguably, there is no law regarding human sexuality, only Law governing relationships and righteousness. Any Early Church canon regarding sex came from the Roman government, culture. The Early Church simply did not have reason to address human sexuality. The Synod of Elvira, if I am not mistaken, is the first establishment of Canons within the Church, approximately 305. Gregory the Great was pope from c. 540 - 12 and with his Moralia of Job the Church began recognizing sex as the gateway to sin. Anything about sex before Gregory the Great was Roman (Not Catholic). Roman law had great regards for what the definition of a man was. What changed Roman law was the issue of the rights of Eunuchs as, they were consistently apart of the Roman Courts and aristocracy.

Christians today want their perceptions and doctrine to be God's doing but historically such pretended precepts do not, never existed.

Leviticus was about Israel's constitution. The sin regarding, what today's Christians want to believe, was not about homosexuality (as is evidenced by the modern definition of homosexuality) because, as with your question regarding male-male sex and, female-female sex, was never the concern within Leviticus. Idolatry was the concern. What was mixed was the concern. I don't lightly tread on Christianity when I make this sort of a statement. I look deep into the true meaning of each Hebrew, Greek and English word that represents for Christianity what Christianity is all about. The truth is startling.

Without an exhausting reply riddled with biblical quotes and exegesis relating to the truth, I am prepared to do so, with historical facts as well as biblical references.

It is said that no one person can possibly absorb all that has been revealed in the past century regarding the OT and the NT. The deeper I get in my research the more in depth the corroboration becomes, the more fluent is the message of the Bible. Like my statement regarding St. Augustine above or in previous reply, from St. Aujustine to Gregory the Great's Moralia of Job, it is very clear that St. Augustine's disordered love predominates. More to the point, the OT spoke of what was in the heart as well as Jesus in the NT. These are the same points as St. Augustine and Gregory the Great but, modern Christianity forces the condemnation of homosexuality instead of the true message of the heart.

One must ask, "Why does Christianity hide the true meaning of the Gospel?"

As I stated, I have no interest in arguing RCC/protestant doctrine. The concept of what is now called "gender identity" is off the radar in the Tanach. The only sexual relationship that it approves of is male/female matrimonial and there is a good amount of detail in HaTorah regarding the nature of that relationship. The reason Paul refers to other relationships is because he is acclimating people from hedonist cultures to Torah culture. The fact that sex was part of the theistic rites of those cultures does not limit the teaching to just sexual theistic rites. It only adds another dimension to their not being recognized as acceptable in a Torah submissive society.

First, I assume that you are Jewish. Secondly, this thread did begin with recognizing Christian principles. The rest of what you say is important from the standpoint of Judaism regarding "gender identity" and, the nature of how Judaism sees the relationship. I, arguably defend your stance on Paul's reasoning. Understandably, sex as a part of the theistic rites had more to do with Israel than those rites had to do with sexuality. Which brings to mind that what the Law was about in the first place. Understandably, the Law was not about sexuality as it was about "enforceable rules by which a social group is ordered and controlled." A nationality, Israel's. From the Christian point of view, homosexuality became a scapegoat regarding the true nature of sin, as I've related to in my last post. Sin is not defined by sex nor is sex sin.

For purposes of procreation, the natural course is to have intercourse with a woman. Men took women in the OT as it was his right. The woman was his property and the Law established justice for the men of Israel as well as the rights as dictated by the Law for women of Israel. These laws really had nothing to do with sex. Israel was only concerned about her well being, about idolatry. It was all about Israel's nationalism.

[Haven]

Hi! Welcome to the forums !

Given that the word, homosexuality was coined in 1969

That's actually not true, friend. The term "homosexuality" has been around since the 19th century:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminolog ... Homosexual

, the Church has condemned what we call homosexuality from as far back as Gregory the Great. Then it was referred to as sodomy.

Do you have a citation for this? I know the original Biblical sense of "sodomy" referred to inhospitality and unkindness (Ezekiel 16:49) and the use of "sodomy" to refer to homosexual sex wasn't until much later.

Sodomy was also coined in the first two centuries of the Church.

Evidence?

What most don't recognize is that Roman law dictated sexuality and it is there that the Church developed sexual ethics.

How is this relevant to modern secular law in the US / other countries? This is not a Christian theocracy. How do Christian beliefs about what is sinful or not have to do with what should be legal in the US?

As a side, it is said that marijuana is a gate way drug. So to is sin linked to the genitals.

This entire claim is deeply problematic and unevidenced. Provide evidence that:

1) Marijuana is a "gateway drug"

2) "Sin" (define this) is lined to the "genitals."

Leviticus was no different than Roman law. The laws ordered their societies. Masclinity ordered both laws and justice was the goal of both laws.

Masculinity and justice are two totally different things. What is the connection between the two concepts?

Christians were persecuted in Rome because they were atheist.

How can Christian theists possibly be atheist? Atheism means to disbelieve in deities, early Christians believed in a deity (actually a conglomeration of three deities), so they weren't atheist. The Christians who were persecuted in Rome weren't oppressed for "atheism" (or anything to do with the Roman pantheon), they were persecuted for opposing the domination of the Roman state. This is also why the historical Jesus was crucified.

[bluethread]

As I stated, I have no interest in arguing RCC/protestant doctrine. The concept of what is now called "gender identity" is off the radar in the Tanach. The only sexual relationship that it approves of is male/female matrimonial and there is a good amount of detail in HaTorah regarding the nature of that relationship. The reason Paul refers to other relationships is because he is acclimating people from hedonist cultures to Torah culture. The fact that sex was part of the theistic rites of those cultures does not limit the teaching to just sexual theistic rites. It only adds another dimension to their not being recognized as acceptable in a Torah submissive society.

First, I assume that you are Jewish. Secondly, this thread did begin with recognizing Christian principles. The rest of what you say is important from the standpoint of Judaism regarding "gender identity" and, the nature of how Judaism sees the relationship. I, arguably defend your stance on Paul's reasoning. Understandably, sex as a part of the theistic rites had more to do with Israel than those rites had to do with sexuality. Which brings to mind that what the Law was about in the first place. Understandably, the Law was not about sexuality as it was about "enforceable rules by which a social group is ordered and controlled." A nationality, Israel's. From the Christian point of view, homosexuality became a scapegoat regarding the true nature of sin, as I've related to in my last post. Sin is not defined by sex nor is sex sin.

Assume what you please, but may I point out that Yeshua is Jewish, as is Paul, being a Benjamite. Therefore, it would behoove us to look at what they say and write in that light. I would also like to know whom you are quoting when you say what HaTorah was all about. What I said was, "The only sexual relationship that it approves of is male/female matrimonial and there is a good amount of detail in HaTorah regarding the nature of that relationship." and that the hedonistic practices of the nations is secondary to that. Your statement that "Sin is not defined by sex nor is sex sin." is not a truism, but a meaningless play on words. Sin is not defined by sex in the same way that it is not defined by economics. However, that does not mean that some kinds of sex or economics are not sinful.

For purposes of procreation, the natural course is to have intercourse with a woman. Men took women in the OT as it was his right. The woman was his property and the Law established justice for the men of Israel as well as the rights as dictated by the Law for women of Israel. These laws really had nothing to do with sex. Israel was only concerned about her well being, about idolatry. It was all about Israel's nationalism.

I am aware of commandments regarding when a woman can not have sex, but where in HaTorah do you find that a woman is obligated to have sex? That said, there are several commandments regarding when a man is obligated to have sex and with whom and all of them are stated in the context of male/female marital relationships.

[Eternity]

[Replying to post 23 by Haven]

Eternity wrote:

Given that the word, homosexuality was coined in 1969


That's actually not true, friend. The term "homosexuality" has been around since the 19th century:
Sorry, typo, 1869 is more like it. You are correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminolog ... Homosexual
Eternity wrote:
, the Church has condemned what we call homosexuality from as far back as Gregory the Great. Then it was referred to as sodomy.


You are right to question and ask for a citation. I don't have what I wrote in front of me but I can elaborate on what I was saying.
You would be correct to question whether the Church actually came out and said that it condemned homosexuality (as we define it today) at any point in the Church early history. My research has led me to understand that the Early Church at no time defined homosexuality nor condemned it. So, why does the Church and Christianity condemn homosexuality? This is my research. The only evidence to the why the Church condemns homosexuality is that of Gregory the Great's book, Moralia of Job where he defines the sin of “luxuria� (The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology), one of the seven cardinal sins, where “luxuria� becomes for Gregory the Great a sexual sin. How he gets to this conclusion is by invention. “The devil holds these members in subjection and from them porduces the salacious images and the physiological pulses that lead to acts of luxuria, outward or inward.� Jordan, p. 39. Gregory the Great then subjected the genitals, so to speak as the gateway to the sin of “luxuria.� Which, in your question regarding marijuana being a gateway drug as an erroneous statement applies to Gregor the Great's defining “luxuria� as a sexual sin.

Do you have a citation for this? I know the original Biblical sense of "sodomy" referred to inhospitality and unkindness (Ezekiel 16:49) and the use of "sodomy" to refer to homosexual sex wasn't until much later.

Thanks for acknowledging Ezekiel 16:49 as the definition of sodomy.

Eternity wrote:
Sodomy was also coined in the first two centuries of the Church.


Evidence?
Eternity wrote:
What most don't recognize is that Roman law dictated sexuality and it is there that the Church developed sexual ethics.

The Early Church did not have sexual ethics, no canon laws until the Synod of Elvira and what the Church associates as a condemnation homosexuality was from Canon 71 which speaks of pedophilia (there is a more accurate derivation of this word to express 71.) My research then is looking for that Canon, encyclical, some documentation that declares the condemnation from withing the Early Church. My research says that there is no such edict. So, why the condemnation of homosexuality? The Early Church took its sexual ethics from Roman law. See The Manly Eunuch, Mathew Kuefler.
The answer comes to us from understanding the documentation that does exist from writings of the Early Church whether it is from the Didache from Theophilus of Antioch. My research shows that all references to what we call homosexuality was in fact what we today call pedophilia. Gregory the Great's Moralia of Job, shows how sex becomes the defining act that leads to sin. Sin is not defined by sex until Gregory the Great. This then is that defining moment in Church history that sets the stage for the invention of the condemnation of homosexuality.

How is this relevant to modern secular law in the US / other countries? This is not a Christian theocracy. How do Christian beliefs about what is sinful or not have to do with what should be legal in the US?

The relevance, in answer to your question, is not that this relevance is but that it never should become relevant in US government. Not because of the invention of this condemnation of homosexuality nor, on any religious belief.

Eternity wrote:

As a side, it is said that marijuana is a gate way drug. So to is sin linked to the genitals.


This entire claim is deeply problematic and unevidenced. Provide evidence that:

1) Marijuana is a "gateway drug"

2) "Sin" (define this) is lined to the "genitals."

I believe that I covered these question in the above answers. Feel free to ask more questions. I welcome your questions or observation of what I say as it stimulates further research I may not have thought of while bogged down by my research.

Eternity wrote:
Leviticus was no different than Roman law. The laws ordered their societies. Masclinity ordered both laws and justice was the goal of both laws.


Masculinity and justice are two totally different things. What is the connection between the two concepts?

I do not mean to make a connection between the two except to say that justice was ordered accordingly to the societies definition of masculinity. See, The Manly Eunuch, Mathew Kuefler. Justice for OT women was ordered by, in regards to property rights of men.

Eternity wrote:
Christians were persecuted in Rome because they were atheist.


How can Christian theists possibly be atheist? Atheism means to disbelieve in deities, early Christians believed in a deity (actually a conglomeration of three deities), so they weren't atheist. The Christians who were persecuted in Rome weren't oppressed for "atheism" (or anything to do with the Roman pantheon), they were persecuted for opposing the domination of the Roman state. This is also why the historical Jesus was crucified.

Let me simply state that the idea that Early Christians did not accept the Roman gods meant that they did not conform to the religion of the day and therefore were atheists in the eyes of Romans. They most certainly were persecuted for that very reason. It is most likely well known that Christians were asked to deny their God and accept the rituals of Roman pagan religions. It stands to reason that the Christian was persecuted for opposing the Roman state.

"As the existence of the Christians became more widely known, it became increasingly clear that they were (a) antisocial, in that they did not participate in the normal social life of their communities; (b) sacrilegious, in that they refused to worship the gods; and (c) dangerous, in that the gods did not take kindly to communities that harbored those who failed to offer them cult. By the end of the second century, the Christian apologist (literally, 'defender' of the faith) Tertullian complained about the widespread perception that Christians were the source of all disasters brought against the human race by the gods. 'They think the Christians the cause of every public disaster, of every affliction with which the people are visited. If the Tiber rises as high as the city walls, if the Nile does not send its waters up over the fields, if the heavens give no rain, if there is an earthquake, if there is famine or pestilence, straightway the cry is, "Away with the Christians to the lion!"' (Apology 40)" - Bart D. Ehrman, A Brief Introduction to the New Testament (Oxford University Press 2004 ISBN 978-0-19-536934-2), pp. 313–314 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Chris ... ite_note-6


Athenagoras’ apology, addressed to Emperor Marcus Aurelius, called the legatio pro Christianis “combats the three popular charges against Christians: atheism, incest and cannibalism.� In this work, divided into 33 books, he devotes 28 books on refuting the charge of atheism, as to illustrate the gravity. To comprehend the allegation of atheism, it needs to be understood that the Romans had a pragmatic approach to religion. Ferguson remarks that so too “atheism in the ancient world was practical, not theoretical.� In order to remain favourable to the Gods, the Romans merely had to perform religious practice correctly, regardless of any personal conviction. The people were free to hold any belief, on one condition. Nothing was demanded of new faiths except an occasional gesture of adoration to the gods and the head of state. An atheist was “someone who did not observe the traditional practice.� Not to partake in public worship, is not so much obstinacy to the virtue of obedience, but it could endanger the whole state and was seen as the equivalent of treason. Thomas Robbins pointed out that “one was converted to the intolerant faiths of Judaism and Christianity while one merely adhered to the cults of Isis, Orpheus, or Mithra.� Paying tribute to another god was no impediment for pagans who could effortlessly exchange allegiance between diverse gods, for worship was a mere adherence without any further going convictions other than a commitment towards a patron. Conversely it was more problematic for faiths without such a flexible pantheon, especially monotheists who were seen as intolerant for their repudiation to adhere to the gods of the empire. As a result monotheists were rated as atheists: “one’s own god counted for nothing if one denied everybody else’s.�

[Haven]

The only evidence to the why the Church condemns homosexuality is that of Gregory the Great's book, Moralia of Job where he defines the sin of “luxuria� (The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology), one of the seven cardinal sins, where “luxuria� becomes for Gregory the Great a sexual sin. How he gets to this conclusion is by invention. “The devil holds these members in subjection and from them porduces the salacious images and the physiological pulses that lead to acts of luxuria, outward or inward.� Jordan, p. 39.

Gregory the Great then subjected the genitals, so to speak as the gateway to the sin of “luxuria.� Which, in your question regarding marijuana being a gateway drug as an erroneous statement applies to Gregor the Great's defining “luxuria� as a sexual sin. [/b]

"Luxuria" simply means "extravagance, decadence, hedonism." In this context it appears to condemn promiscuity and other forms of sexual hedonism, and a hedonistic lifestyle in general (it's also the source of our current word "luxury," which today still carries connotations of extravagance and vice). Certain forms of homosexual sex could fall under this term, but so could certain forms of heterosexual sex. Gregory appears to be condemning promiscuity in general, not same-sex intimacy writ large. To see connotations of homosexuality here is to read modern beliefs into an ancient text. When read in the original context of the time (in which same-sex relationships were described in various ways, but never as "luxuria."). There is nothing in Gregory that condemns a committed monogamous relationship between two same-sex partners.

The Early Church did not have sexual ethics,

That's actually incorrect. The New Testament was written by representatives of "the early church" (actually a collection of churches, each of which had varying doctrines), and it certainly condemns adultery and other "sexual sins."

no canon laws until the Synod of Elvira and what the Church associates as a condemnation homosexuality was from Canon 71 which speaks of pedophilia (there is a more accurate derivation of this word to express 71.)

The Catholic Church is not synonymous with "the early church." There are over two centuries of history between the foundation of Christianity and the Synod of Elvira.

Also, pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality. The former is an abusive, criminal violation of children, while the latter is a consensual relationship between adults. It is both inaccurate and disrespectful to conflate the two. I also find it interesting (and tragic) that the Catholic Church (at least until Pope Francis) seems to be more obsessed with stopping LGBT rights than stamping out pedophilia in its own ranks.

My research then is looking for that Canon, encyclical, some documentation that declares the condemnation from withing the Early Church. My research says that there is no such edict. So, why the condemnation of homosexuality? The Early Church took its sexual ethics from Roman law. See The Manly Eunuch, Mathew Kuefler.

Thank you for admitting the influence of Roman practices on today's Christianity (though this influence wasn't present when the New Testament was written). Roman law actually accepted and sanctioned several forms of same-sex relationship (master-slave, low status-high status, etc.), but it did in fact not allow for gay marriage or LGBT rights in the modern sense. This does not amount to a condemnation of homosexuality in and of itself, and it also doesn't mean that the church (in general, as well as the Catholic Church) can't evolve on the issue. I sincerely doubt that the original framers of Christianity (Paul, the NT authors, etc.) intended to say that Roman law was equivalent to the word of God.

The answer comes to us from understanding the documentation that does exist from writings of the Early Church whether it is from the Didache from Theophilus of Antioch. My research shows that all references to what we call homosexuality was in fact what we today call pedophilia.

If you're referring to the use of "arsenokoites" by Paul and early so-called church fathers, then I'd agree that this refers to pedophilia. The language implies an adult abusing a child, almost certainly for ritual prostitution.

Gregory the Great's Moralia of Job, shows how sex becomes the defining act that leads to sin. Sin is not defined by sex until Gregory the Great. This then is that defining moment in Church history that sets the stage for the invention of the condemnation of homosexuality.[/b]

Pope Gregory I never condemned homosexuality, only sexual excess ("luxuria"). You're trying to make the text do something it was never intended to do.

The relevance, in answer to your question, is not that this relevance is but that it never should become relevant in US government. Not because of the invention of this condemnation of homosexuality nor, on any religious belief.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Could you please clarify?

I do not mean to make a connection between the two except to say that justice was ordered accordingly to the societies definition of masculinity. See, The Manly Eunuch, Mathew Kuefler. Justice for OT women was ordered by, in regards to property rights of men.

I agree that the patriarchal Ancient Hebrew and Roman societies equated masculinity with justice, but this provides no reason for us to believe that we should continue to conceptualize justice in that way. (Assuming theism is true) There is no reason to believe that ancient Roman and Levantine belief is identical to a divine command, so why assume that God agrees with these ancient peoples (who also supported slavery, genocide, and rape, by the way).

Eternity, thanks for the kind and respectful response. It's always nice to debate with someone respectfully, even when we have such deep disagreements.

[Eternity]

[Replying to Haven]


Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2015 1:00 am Post subject:


Eternity wrote:
The only evidence to the why the Church condemns homosexuality is that of Gregory the Great's book, Moralia of Job where he defines the sin of “luxuria� (The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology), one of the seven cardinal sins, where “luxuria� becomes for Gregory the Great a sexual sin. How he gets to this conclusion is by invention. “The devil holds these members in subjection and from them porduces the salacious images and the physiological pulses that lead to acts of luxuria, outward or inward.� Jordan, p. 39.

Gregory the Great then subjected the genitals, so to speak as the gateway to the sin of “luxuria.� Which, in your question regarding marijuana being a gateway drug as an erroneous statement applies to Gregor the Great's defining “luxuria� as a sexual sin. [/b]

"Luxuria" simply means "extravagance, decadence, hedonism." In this context it appears to condemn promiscuity and other forms of sexual hedonism, and a hedonistic lifestyle in general (it's also the source of our current word "luxury," which today still carries connotations of extravagance and vice). Certain forms of homosexual sex could fall under this term, but so could certain forms of heterosexual sex. Gregory appears to be condemning promiscuity in general, not same-sex intimacy writ large. To see connotations of homosexuality here is to read modern beliefs into an ancient text. When read in the original context of the time (in which same-sex relationships were described in various ways, but never as "luxuria."). There is nothing in Gregory that condemns a committed monogamous relationship between two same-sex partners.

“Gregory's teaching on luxuria doubles the sin. On the other hand, it is a sin subject to indefinite modulation through the chambers of the body and the soul. It appears in one guise, then in another. Beaten down in the flesh, it returns through images projected from memory. If the memory of one kind of pleasure is successfully controlled, control itself may become an occasion for luxuria. On the other hand, the sin is housed in the genitals as in a part of the body that has been given over to demonic control. It flames out of those organs through specific channels of desire. It reaches out to fornication, adultery, to every perverse ordering of the flesh.� The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology, Mark D. Jordan, p. 39.

“There is more. The two logics are not deployed symmetrically. It is rather the case that the generalized luxuria is used to defend the genital one from criticism. To the charge that Gregory's teaching gives too much weight to genital sins, it can be replied that luxuria is much broader than that. It is more like Augustine's notion of disordered desire, a fundamental inversion in the will that shows itself in dozens of secondary disorders. But as soon as this expansive doctrine is advanced, Gregory will bring all of its weight to bear on genital sins, as if they just were the fundamental inversion. Certain sins of the flesh are brought into the system of moral teaching at one level, then linked by the term luxuria to much graver dysfunction. It is easy enough then to transfer the sense of gravity out, down to the sins of the flesh.� Ibid., p. 39.

With Gregory the Great doubling the sin, the Church can easily divert attention away from the sin of luxuria to moral condemnation of “Sodomy.� By associating luxuria with sex and points back to Sodom where Ezekiel defined the sin of Sodom, which resembles the sin of luxuria and has identified Sodomitic intercourse to an abstract essence of a proper name, reducing a the sin of Sodom to a single sin. This is true with with other abstractions such as, “Christian� abstracted from a single name or, as with “Arianism.� “They allow a writer to reduce an opponent to a schematic caricature.� Ibid., p. 42, 43.
This abstraction has allowed for a further abstraction of the word “sodomy� to the word, “homosexuality.� My research has been to discover how Christianity condemns homosexuality.

You may have surmised that my response was against homosexuality. It is not.

Eternity wrote:

The Early Church did not have sexual ethics,

That's actually incorrect. The New Testament was written by representatives of "the early church" (actually a collection of churches, each of which had varying doctrines), and it certainly condemns adultery and other "sexual sins."

I do not find adultery a sexual sin. One may also apply Jordan's, abstract essence of a proper name to adultery. In the OT adultery was about a married man having sexual relations with a married woman. The NT adultery was about a married man having sex with another woman. So, today adultery is a married man having sex with any woman other than his wife and a married woman having sexual relations with anyone other than her husband. Take not that today this definition could mean husband having sex with another man or a woman having sex with another woman, as it is stated in the above statement. Funny how that same-sex relation slipped into the definition of adultery. This definition, as stated at http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_adultery.htm , fails to identify with why adultery was an issue in the OT. First of all, infidelity of the husband in the OT did not constitute adultery. What this says is that it was okay for a man but not a woman. http://www.truthortradition.com/article ... t-adultery . Now, the meaning of adultery begins to emerge. Since this thread is not about adultery and I think that I have begun to make my point; my request to you is to provide where in the Bible human sexuality is addressed. What are the “sexual sins� that you are referring to? Maybe this could be another thread.

Eternity wrote:
no canon laws until the Synod of Elvira and what the Church associates as a condemnation homosexuality was from Canon 71 which speaks of pedophilia (there is a more accurate derivation of this word to express 71.)

The Catholic Church is not synonymous with "the early church." There are over two centuries of history between the foundation of Christianity and the Synod of Elvira.

Yes, I concur. What was referred to as abuse of young boys in the Early Church was not homosexuality as the Church emphatically states today. Above I laid out the invention of Sodomy as the abstract essence of a proper name or in this case, of a historical name, Sodom. Homosexuality is then antihistorical.

Also, pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality. The former is an abusive, criminal violation of children, while the latter is a consensual relationship between adults. It is both inaccurate and disrespectful to conflate the two. I also find it interesting (and tragic) that the Catholic Church (at least until Pope Francis) seems to be more obsessed with stopping LGBT rights than stamping out pedophilia in its own ranks.

Yes, again I concur. There is more to what you've said.

Eternity wrote:
My research then is looking for that Canon, encyclical, some documentation that declares the condemnation from withing the Early Church. My research says that there is no such edict. So, why the condemnation of homosexuality? The Early Church took its sexual ethics from Roman law. See The Manly Eunuch, Mathew Kuefler.

Thank you for admitting the influence of Roman practices on today's Christianity (though this influence wasn't present when the New Testament was written). Roman law actually accepted and sanctioned several forms of same-sex relationship (master-slave, low status-high status, etc.), but it did in fact not allow for gay marriage or LGBT rights in the modern sense. This does not amount to a condemnation of homosexuality in and of itself, and it also doesn't mean that the church (in general, as well as the Catholic Church) can't evolve on the issue. I sincerely doubt that the original framers of Christianity (Paul, the NT authors, etc.) intended to say that Roman law was equivalent to the word of God.

I would agree that the original framers did not intend “to say that Roman law was equivalent to the word of God.� But the influence of Roman law, Greek philosophy did influence the Early Church Fathers and the Church.

“Ultimately, Biblical tests were mostly approved or rejected and Biblical passages cited or ignored insofar as they corresponded with already existing beliefs about the place of sex and marriage within the Christian life.� The Manly Eunuch, Masculinity, Gender Ambiguity, and Christian Ideology in Late Antiquity, p. 188.


Eternity wrote:
The answer comes to us from understanding the documentation that does exist from writings of the Early Church whether it is from the Didache from Theophilus of Antioch. My research shows that all references to what we call homosexuality was in fact what we today call pedophilia.

If you're referring to the use of "arsenokoites" by Paul and early so-called church fathers, then I'd agree that this refers to pedophilia. The language implies an adult abusing a child, almost certainly for ritual prostitution.
Agreed.

Eternity wrote:
Gregory the Great's Moralia of Job, shows how sex becomes the defining act that leads to sin. Sin is not defined by sex until Gregory the Great. This then is that defining moment in Church history that sets the stage for the invention of the condemnation of homosexuality.[/b]

Pope Gregory I never condemned homosexuality, only sexual excess ("luxuria"). You're trying to make the text do something it was never intended to do.

By now I hope that you have begun to understand what it is that I'm researching. Gregory the Great did not condemn homosexuality. The importance of luxuria and the fact that Gregory the Great changed the term, “sodomia,� only relates to how the invention of homosexuality came about. I am not “trying to make the text do something it was never intended to do.�


Eternity wrote:
The relevance, in answer to your question, is not that this relevance is but that it never should become relevant in US government. Not because of the invention of this condemnation of homosexuality nor, on any religious belief.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Could you please clarify?

My response was prompted by these questions: “How is this relevant to modern secular law in the US / other countries? This is not a Christian theocracy. How do Christian beliefs about what is sinful or not have to do with what should be legal in the US?� “Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2015 8:08 pm�


Eternity wrote:

I do not mean to make a connection between the two except to say that justice was ordered accordingly to the societies definition of masculinity. See, The Manly Eunuch, Mathew Kuefler. Justice for OT women was ordered by, in regards to property rights of men.

I agree that the patriarchal Ancient Hebrew and Roman societies equated masculinity with justice, but this provides no reason for us to believe that we should continue to conceptualize justice in that way. (Assuming theism is true) There is no reason to believe that ancient Roman and Levantine belief is identical to a divine command, so why assume that God agrees with these ancient peoples (who also supported slavery, genocide, and rape, by the way).

Again, I would agree. God does not approve or disapprove man's life.

Eternity, thanks for the kind and respectful response. It's always nice to debate with someone respectfully, even when we have such deep disagreements.

Thanks for your debate.