Pope Francis has endorsed same-sex unions.

I certainly don't accept that conclusion. Almost the entirety of the secular establishment in the US (and in Australia, apparently) has been taken over by post-Christian and increasingly anti-Christian ideology. Thus the things I would've trusted from the NIH 10 years ago, I no longer trust today. And perhaps I shouldn't have trusted them 10 years ago either, seeing as how the APA decision to re-classify homosexuality as an 'orientation' was just as corrupt in the 1970s. The question is, how far back does this rot of corruption go. It is certainly older than just the last 10 years. So for how many decades have we been fed spoonfuls of poison, just small enough to prevent us from resisting too strenuously?

Indeed homosexuality is not an orientation. It is still a mental disorder, as 100% of Western scientists agreed until the 1960s-70s. Science and reality do not change in just a matter of years. A reversal of this speed can only be attributed to virulent post-Christian ideology, and if you look at the history of the APA reversal in 1972, it was indeed a non-scientific, ideological decision. The same thinking is driving the APA to try to re-classify pedophilia as an 'orientation'. Scientifically, homosexuality is extremely harmful to the person, and they need to be treated for it, not coddled. Pedophilia also.

So do I trust these studies from the NIH? Absolutely not.

And looking just at your specific example: would I rather a child have one parent, or, two unnatural sodomistic parents who will teach the child to live in corruption? Absolutely not!! There is no danger to the child from a single parent; just a lack of the goodness that comes from a complete household. There is active spiritual danger to the child from two same-sex parents, and it will be a lot more difficult to teach that child about his nature, about God's order, about virtues.

There is belief in the West, that 'love' cures all things. If two people 'love' each other then it doesn't matter who they are. "Love is love." That's not a Christian slogan, that's a satanic slogan.

 

So then, your objections, such as they are, would not apply to lesbian couples, but would apply to heterosexual married couples that nonetheless engage in ‘sodomy’.

 

Yes of course. Heterosexual couples that engage in something like BDSM are definitely dangerous to their children as well. However in that case the corruption is not the core of their relationship, but is only incident to their relationship. Also it is invisible in the public forum, so it is difficult to make policies against it. But on the internal level, and in the spiritual community, the Church should absolutely (and does, and has) prohibit those couples from engaging in any unnatural unions, and if they don't, to impose spiritual discipline on them.

Lesbian couples are also mentally unhealthy. All of us here have seen many gay couples by this point in our unhappy century. We know what they look like, what they act like. I can tell you, that having lived in a deep-blue deeply LGBT-saturated city as I have, I have met & encountered hundreds if not thousands of same-sex couples, and only one was at least resembling of a wholesome apple-pie couple. Even that was on the surface, scratch the surface and you'd find deep pathologies, but at least on the surface they tried to project a tinge of decency; a cute nativity display for Christmas etc. Only one couple (gay or lesbian), among thousands, that has sought to manifest a happy traditional family. 0.001% success rate.

So no, my criticism applies to all unnatural couples. And to the natural couples that engage in unnatural unions. The Church has been extremely restrictive about this for centuries, and for good reason. If the Church doesn't stand up for it, no one will. People will pursue pleasure if they aren't restrained. Pleasure is too addictive on its own, without spiritual discipline.

 

Ok. So your basic objection, then, is deontological in nature, correct? In other words, your interest lies neither in possible preconditions (e.g., “orientation”), nor in possible effects (e.g., measurable outcomes), but rather in the act itself, and its intrinsic rationality, right? If so, then all this talk about studies is a waste of time from the start, regardless of who conducted them. What we should be talking about, to address what you’re saying, are things like “design/purpose”, “intrinsic rationality”, and “teleology” in nature; am I on the right track (regarding your view)? Regardless of our differences on the subject, such as they are, I do genuinely want to engage the substance of what you’re saying, rather than us just talk past each other unfruitfully.

 

I don't believe this statement is helpful, true or kind. And it leaves open a wide field of questions. Do you think tearing them apart will improve their mental health? Do you think stigmatising them as mentally unwell helps anyone. Do you think straightening out the odd lesbian will advance the Kingdom of God in any meaningful way? Do you have any reasonable approach to addressing the mental health issues you have identified.

It seems to me that this is not a reflection that stands up. The fleshpots of San Francisco and Nevada are not indicative of the natural inclination of most people. Maslow's hierarchy of needs suggests that there is a whole lot that needs to happen before we think about the hedonistic pursuit of pleasure for its own sake.

Why is it that some single gender couples, despite the criticism they face from the Church, still want to belong to, participate and contribute to the work of the Church? Are they not responding to the Spirit in their lives? Are they not accepting the invitation of Christ to take up their cross and follow him?

Sometime we mistake the call the be ambassadors for Christ, as a call to be God's bouncers!

 

That wasn't the purpose of that claim. Both because we're not talking about taking kids from single parents and giving them to homosexual couples, and because, as I understood it, this was a discussion about a secular law. The original point is about Francis permitting a secular law that could lead to gay adoption.

The life of the child in state custody is materially worse than the life of the child in a gay family. That's the secular calculus, including the calculus of a Christian who lives in a secular society.

There are many spiritually bankrupt families that are permitted to adopt. Many more so than gay couples. A vitriolic atheist couple, disciples of Dawkins or something, who despise religion are going to raise their children further from God than a gay catholic family in a civil union that goes to church every Sunday. Should we also prohibit the atheist couple from adopting? I understand your concern, so don't take this as me dismissing your point, - but it is a dangerous line of thinking to start drawing the line of secular law on a child's spiritual health over their physical health. That kind of thinking would lead to Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Atheists being prohibited from adopting. My country is more Catholic than Anglican - perhaps after that the state will prohibit Anglicans from adopting as well. The state is not in a good position to determine what helps or hinders the spiritual development of a child, and I don't want to live in a fundamentalist theocracy like Iran where the state does make those determinations. Our Christian worldview should always inform our morals and ethics that we apply to our secular society, but I believe it's of crucial importance that we make sure the line between our Christian lives and our Secular lives is thick.

 

"Gay catholic," there's an oxymoron for sure!

 

"What profit is it for the soul if the body is unshackled, active, and healthy, if it eats, drinks, lives as it will? Conversely, how does it harm the soul if the body is imprisoned, sick and weary, hungers and thirsts and suffers against its will? None of these things can touch the soul, to free it or bind it, to make it righteous or evil." - Martin Luther in Von der Freiheit eines Christenmenschen

I think it is important to grasp the dichotomy between the physical and spiritual nature of humans. "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" The well-being of one's physical nature should never trump that of one's physical nature. We often see in the Bible that a degenerate society produces more degeneracy. Although I hope that all children find a loving household, homosexual unions are not that household. Should we let drunkards adopt children? I would assume that some on the forum would say that racists shouldn't adopt children, but that is 100% okay if homosexuals do. A fish rots from the head down, and so do families (and societies).

 

Racists can legally adopt, if they have no criminal record acting on that hatred. The logical conclusions of a state restricting adoption to only those that follow a state-endorsed ideology are equally frightening.

 

There’s very little of the population that is gay AND in a “civil union,” so banning them from adopting children would be a blip in the grand scheme of things, not a nightmarish situation like you say. saying that there are more heterosexuals and kids will therefore find more sexual immorality among heterosexuals is also irrelevant. Per capita, gays are obviously more sexually immoral, because they’re gay….
I don’t know why you bring up these studies when I’m talking about spiritual harm, not physical, not educational. You can’t measure spiritual harm so I can’t give you statistics on that.
You are looking at this in a secular view, when I’m talking about a Christian view. There is no “Christianity stays over here” and “secular humanism and science and statistics goes over here,” for me. My worldview is grounded on my faith. And traditional Christianity believes homosexuality to be a sin. And that the family structure is a man and a woman. If Francis wants to support same sex civil unions and gays adopting kids, he is deviating from traditional Christianity.

 

Can we at least call them morally disordered?

 

Let's apply your questions to any other harmful addiction.

Do I think tearing people apart from their heroin needles will improve their mental health? Well, yes of course in the long run. It's terribly unhealthy for them. But I probably wouldn't "tear" them away, but ween them off, as therapy has been known to do for centuries.

Do I think straightening out the odd heroin addict will advance the Kingdom of God? Most certainly I do. Every person is precious, and it would be terrible to lose them.

Do I have any reasonable approach to addressing the mental health issues around heroin addiction? I'm happy to accept that the science is still evolving on this (and other) harmful addictions. So patience and more science is recommended. Prayer is also always helpful in addictions.

So, in short, let's be kind to the heroin addict, there is no need to put them down or destroy them (as has been done, lamentably, with addicts in the past). What we need to do is utterly pity them in their misery. The one thing we shouldn't do to them is to celebrate them. And we definitely cannot aid and abet their self-destructive behavior.

If you are doubtful about the chances of rehabilitation from the same-sex disorders, I'd recommend looking into the Ex-Gay movement. It is hidden by the establishment media for obvious reasons, but it's a fact that it is filled with hundreds of thousands of people who successfully healed the mental disorders in their minds:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUOYSoz4zGq4XJon4ExLQTw/videos

 

You may well be able to, however I believe that such a call on the part of an Australian would be tempting time in court.

I would prefer to start with the notion that they are human beings, made in, and after the image of God. From that high benchmark we have sinned and are falling short of the glory of God. Yes, all of us, even straight people. Homosexual, Gay, Lesbian etc are terms that are best used describing actions and relationships, rather than the people themselves.

 

Oh, but there most certainly is, if you live in a pluralistic society. The only alternative to secular law in such a society is eventual religious civil war. And by that I mean actual civil war, a lesson those in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq have learned all too tragically over the last decade especially, just as Protestants and Catholics learned in Britain and on the Continent in the century following the Reformation. Most people would not want to be subject to an unaccountable theocracy. By “rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s”, the Pope is avoiding the Church’s past mistake of seeking to impose, or supporting the imposition of, Catholicism on non-Catholics, while at the same time leaving the Church’s teaching untouched insofar as it applies to its own members. Acknowledging the State’s authority to grant civil unions doesn’t mean the Church is going to start doing the same thing. If anything, it serves to further contrast the difference between what the State may allow and what the Church holds up as an ideal. What could be objectionable about that from a traditional Christian point of view?

 

That is good reason to pray that the members of Australia's governing bodies would have wisdom to change the laws. We in the US need to be praying along the same lines, as we seem to be rapidly moving along a similar trajectory; freedom isn't what it used to be.

 

Not to go too far off topic, but I read this on Patheos yesterday and found it intriguing: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2021/09/the-future-of-liberal-mormonism/

This short piece outlines the changing attitudes toward gay in the mainline Mormon church. The truly stunning statistic is that 20% of Mormons do not identify as heterosexual.

 

I think the article said '20% of young Mormons', but still it shows the directional change that looms in their wings.

The LDS are far more susceptible to rapid change than the Anglicans, I think, because their belief system is built on the concept that their modern-day 'prophets' can (and do) change and overrule past beliefs as they receive 'new revelations', whereas Anglicanism always looks rearward to the Bible and the early church for constancy and guidance. So these progressive changes will bloom in the LDS very quickly, I predict.

 

I don’t get what Is so wrong about saying that homosexuality is morally disordered in a Christian forum. Most of the west actually caters to them now and you will be socially ostracized if you don’t believe the lgbcdefg agenda. In a day and age when Christians are constantly attacked as “homophobic bigots,” why should we ever sensor our speech for the sake of those who enjoy living in sin?
Homosexuality is actually not necessarily a relationship or action. You can be a gay Christian and choose to remain celibate, and I would admire anyone who denies themselves like that for the Lord. But constant homosexual acts are not the same as the sins we commit everyday. For one, the Bible calls it an abomination. And two, it is a constant unrepentant sin. People used to know homosexual acts were wrong. Now it’s even encouraged, because being straight is “boring.” This is unashamed sexual immorality against God and I’m not afraid to call it that. Just like I would say sex outside of marriage is fornication.
In fact, I view it as a charitable act to call it by what it is. Paul wasn’t afraid to speak of the sins which prevent one from the kingdom of God, neither should we be :
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.”
‭‭I Corinthians‬ ‭6:9-10
Clearly some sins are worse than others. Saying “we all sin” doesn’t really address the problem at hand. If Christians don’t warn the modern world, which sees no problem whatsoever in homosexual acts, that they may lose the kingdom of heaven because of their morally disordered actions, then who will?
Calling them morally disordered in no way implies they are not made in the image of God. It is precisely why we should warn them! We do not want more of the beautiful human beings God has created in his own image to have their name removed from the book of life because they’ve been conditioned by their modern society to view homosexuality as completely morally ordered.

 

Homosexual acts were punished by secular courts in many cases in the ancient world, it’s only recently it has become normalized. And I don’t really see an issue with having a country that bases it’s laws on Christian morality. So long as you don’t burn people alive, like Rome did. Which is actually not Christian at all so my point stands.