Posted on 06/20/2007 4:21:14 PM PDT by wagglebee
ST. JOHN'S, June 20, 2007 (LifeSitenews.com) - Dr. Robert A.J. Gagnon, Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, released a paper responding to a recent push for the official blessing of homosexual unions within the Anglican Church of Canada.
Just a few weeks prior to the 2007 General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada in St. John's, a pro-homosexual "marriage" paper was sent to all the delegates attending the synod. Recently published by John Thorp, professor of philosophy at the University of Western Ontario, the paper was entitled "Making the Case: The Blessing of Same Sex Unions in the Anglican Church of Canada."
Gagnon's response, "Case Not Made: A Response to Prof. John Thorp's 'Making the Case,'" uses scripture, reason and tradition to show why homosexual unions are both immoral and unnatural. He refers to homosexuality as the "narcissism of being erotically aroused by the distinctive features of one's own sex" and also refers to what he calls "the self--and other--dishonoring delusion of imaging a person of the same sex as the sexual complement to one's own sex."
In his paper promoting homosexual unions, Thorp cited several popular pro-homosexual arguments. First, he claims that homosexuality is "inborn". It is "statistically abnormal, but, like left-handedness, it is a normal abnormality." Gagnon points out, however, that being "born gay" is no justification because human nature is fallen, and people struggle with immoral desires all their lives.
Commenting to LifeSiteNews.com, Gagnon explained why the argument for homosexuality from nature doesn't hold weight, saying, "Nature is broader than the concept of innate impulse."
Thorp's argument that homosexuality is like "left-handedness" is also extremely weak, for "left-handedness is not an impulse to do something God expressly forbids. It is not a desire to merge sexually with another structurally discordant to oneself."
In the animal kingdom, objects Thorp, certain creatures exhibit gay behavior. Gagnon responds, "I never used my dear departed dog 'Cocoa' and her instinctive sexual habits as a basis for determining what is 'natural' behavior. You can find animals of various species where some part of the population at least practices incest, pedophilia, extreme polyamory, and cross-species sex, along with same-sex activity."
Thirdly, Thorp states that non-procreativity cannot be used as an argument against homosexual unions because this would be inconsistent with the Church's acceptance of non-procreativity in heterosexual couples.
Gagnon answers, "There is a big difference between having equipment failure (infertility among heterosexual couples) and not having the equipment at all (the inherent incapacity for procreation in homosexual bonds)."
Even when homosexuals seem well-adjusted in other aspects of their lives, says Gagnon, "Same-sex erotic bonds lack a person of the other sex to moderate the extremes of a given sex or to fill in the gaps of the given sex." Homosexual men tend to have more partners and more sexually transmitted diseases, whereas lesbians tend to have shorter relationships and higher mental health issues.
The problem is that those who advocate for homosexuality fall into the trap of thinking that "love and commitment ultimately trump all formal requirements for a sexual union" as long as "intrinsic measurable harm cannot be demonstrated." This idea leads to many problems, for sexual love is distinct from other kinds of love. The "love" of a pedophile for a young child, for example, is both morally abhorrent and illegal.
While Thorp argues that the Bible condemns only forced homosexual acts, Gagnon points out passages in St. Paul and throughout scripture that specifically condemn mutually consenting homosexual relations as shameful and impure. His response also indicates that while Christianity teaches that people should love and respect one another, Christ also makes the rules of sexual morality even stricter than the Old Testament.
Gagnon concludes his response, "When he [Pro. Thorp] concludes by saying that 'Gay liberation is clearly the work of the Spirit. How can it reasonably be otherwise?' one can only shake one's head in astonishment at the degree to which he is sadly mistaken…"
Dr. Gagnon commented to LifeSiteNews.com, "In his use of scripture, tradition and reason, Thorp's arguments are inconsistent and oftentimes illogical. Likewise, he lacks the Biblical, theological and scientific expertise to make a persuasive argument on this issue. He fails to properly deal with the structural complementary of male and female which is the basic reason why homosexuality is unnatural."
Since the ordination of Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire in 2003, an openly active homosexual, the Anglican Church was been increasingly torn apart by international debate over the morality of homosexuality and specifically same-sex marriage. On Saturday, Anglican Church delegates will debate the issue of blessing same-sex unions, and they plan to reach a final decision before the end of the Synod.
See Related Coverage
Anglican Church of England Will Allow Gay Clergy to "Marry"
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/may/05053007.html
50 Homosexual Anglican Clergy Couples "Married" in Civil Partnerships
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jan/07010305.html
Anglican Church "Expels" US and Canadians Anglican Churches over Endorsement of Homosexuality
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/feb/05022508.html
Archbishop of Canterbury Fears Coming Anglican Schism over Homosexuality
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jan/07010904.html
Of course the left doesn't believe in God, so this is irrelevant to them.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping lists.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Traditional Anglican Ping (trust me, it’s in there.)
Don’t forget spiders eat their young.
Heck, female spiders eat the males.
As if those aren't on their agenda.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.
FReepmail Huber or sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (sometimes 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by Huber and sionnsar.
Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Humor: The Anglican Blue
Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15
They eat feces and engage in cannibalism too.
Hmmm... most dogs do try to hump humans.What is “reverse bestiality” called? LOL!
The "love" of a pedophile for a young child, for example, is both morally abhorrent and illegal.Good point.
And aren't those perfectly acceptable sexual preferences and lifestyle choices?
I thought we were supposed to value diversity in our society....
“So What if Animals Have Gay Sex?”
Then that would mean it’s natural, which kicks a strut out from under the argument that it’s a choice people make. Back when homosexuality was punishable as a crime, though, you had to wonder why someone would actively choose to endure the wrath of family and society.
The left is desperately trying to prove that this is natural. it can’t be natural.
As I understand it, the “gay sex” animals have has a lot less to do with heat cycles/hormones (much less sexual desire), and a lot more to do with establishing dominance over the animal that’s mounted , and forming group hierarchies.
and cannabalism.
Then that would mean it’s natural
Those species that had gay sex would have become extinct by now.
And they don't wipe their butts, either.
The people who try to condone homosexual behavior in humans using the behavior of animals should be restricted to hiring primates when they need a doctor, a lawyer, or an accountant.
Then we'll see how much respect they have for animal behavior.
Your right... how could you be wrong with an argument like this?
And male Lions will KILL the cubs of another male to put the female into heat for his own cubs. So, should THAT be OK too?
Rob Gagnon’s a good guy by the way. He’s been soldiering along defending the Biblical view of Christianity for some time now, within a mostly liberal Presbyterian seminary.
He sounds like he knows what he’s talking about.
I am sure the males of some species like to eat their females too -- and it has nothing to do with nourishment.
Good post, It’s truly unatural.
Many animals eat their own poop.
Athiests and agnostics and other disbelievers just believe we are just a bunch of animals anyway. It’s a mere step to legalize all sorts sick disgusting behavior if you have no moral foundation.
When people claim animals have gay sex I always point out that many animals also eat feces. That usually ends the argument very abruptly.
They also kill, eat meat, and crap on the floor.
It's a complicated situation as same-sex attraction isn't a choice most homosexuals choose, although there are some exceptions (QueerByChoice). What we've heard from former homosexuals or ex-gays is that their same-sex attraction wasn't a choice because they were confused, but they do say acting on their same-sex attraction was always a choice.
So they're just confirming what so many have said, homosexuals are no better than animals.
I have been around cattle all my life and tho they ride each other I have never seen a bull penetrate another bull or steer just rides to show dominance.
Maybe-MAYBE-if there's same-sex sex to the point of orgasm between the great apes, that might say something about the "naturalness" of human same-sex sexual encounters, but gay activists who point to such activities among the quadrupeds for proof are wasting their time. The behavior there have little to nothing to do with sexual excitement , and everything to do with dominance and group hierarchy.
Because being subject to the wrath of family and society was part of the desired outcome?
Perhaps because their unnatural (for humans, anyway, if not for lower animals) impulse also led them to believe they were too clever to be discovered?
It would be more correct to note that the sexual behavior of homosexuals is no better than the animals.
This is exactly what the queers want; everyone should be behave more like animals when it comes to the marketing of deviance.
“Back when homosexuality was punishable as a crime, though, you had to wonder why someone would actively choose to endure the wrath of family and society.”
Same argument for any deviant or criminal behavior.
You need to be more understanding of his cultural sense of machismo. It's no doubt, the way he was brought up. You should watch him more closely; I'd be willing to bet he's involved in gang activities, too.
For what it’s worth. Queer sex among livestock is recognized as abnormal and treatable.
“Because being subject to the wrath of family and society was part of the desired outcome?’
Yes, millions of people wanted other people to despise them. It all makes sense now. One day you’re walking down the street and decide, hey, I really like hairy-legged guys. Think I’ll switch.
Of course if you actually were genetically predisposed to do that, then it would be natural after all. Hmmm. Otherwise, heterosexuality is not hard wired if it’s a matter of picking one from column B.
“Same argument for any deviant or criminal behavior.”
You’re saying it’s part of the human condition, I gather.
This does not logically follow.
But if you ever see the photos of the behaviors displayed at these so-called "Gay Pride" parades, you'll see explicit examples of people embracing society's disgust.
Of course if you actually were genetically predisposed to do that, then it would be natural after all.
But as you well know, no one can document a genetic predisposition toward sexual perversion. Only heterosexuality is innate.
Hmmm. Otherwise, heterosexuality is not hard wired if it’s a matter of picking one from column B.
Actually, you need some sort of trauma to be inflicted upon the person psyche to get them to deviate from normal sexual behavior (heterosexuality, that is).
That would be an interesting point to document. It would sure through a monkey wrench into the pro-homo cheerleaders playbook.
Then that would mean it’s natural, which kicks a strut out from under the argument that it’s a choice people make. Back when homosexuality was punishable as a crime, though, you had to wonder why someone would actively choose to endure the wrath of family and society.
Natural or not, it doesn't release a person from the power and the responsibility to choose. Some people are born with a weakness for alcohol, or grow up with violent tendencies. Both of those conditions also have "natural" roots, but we expect those who have them to make frequently difficult choices to control them.
“Actually, you need some sort of trauma to be inflicted upon the person psyche to get them to deviate from normal sexual behavior (heterosexuality, that is).”
Unless you’re born with it.
I’m struck by the fact that my two correspondents in this dwindling thread both have liberal antecedent screennames. Could it be, pace the axiom of there being nothing worse than reformed drunks, that liberals who switch feel obligated to defend the socon notion that even the flat-chested, boyish, moustached bull dykes have no other impetus to lesbianism than choosing to be one?
Consider your dues paid. And now I leave this tar baby, wishing you the best.
Claiming to have discovered the alleged "gay gene?" Oh, stop the presses!
Could it be, pace the axiom of there being nothing worse than reformed drunks, that liberals who switch feel obligated to defend the socon notion that even the flat-chested, boyish, moustached bull dykes have no other impetus to lesbianism than choosing to be one?
Nope, it's just a decision to support the truth, which I know just drives the pro-homo cheerleaders to distraction.
And now I leave this tar baby, wishing you the best.
Or running for the hills, I should add.
I am saying deviant behavior is sometimes defended with ridiculous comparisons. Civilization is based on controlling deviant and criminal behavior, otherwise, we are just animals. Without a code-of-conduct we have chaos.
And they eat their young.
I take it from his last message that you were the other half of the two who scared the pro-homo cheerleader away from this thread?
Yeah, truth is a powerful weapon.
It's too bad they don't even try to support their position.
For the most part this issue boils down to:
There is no genetic test or procedure (experimental or otherwise) that can determine one's sexual orientation.
Yet some people insist on posting "unless you're born [gay]" or some similar unsupportable statement and then they run away.
I attended a lecture series with Gagnon as the speaker. He’s a very congenial guy and knows the relevant scriptures better than anyone I’ve ever heard.
He’s so good that the best of the religious pro-homosexual crowd won’t even try to debate him anymore...as he always cuts up their sissy arguments into little pieces.
Gagnon wouldn’t argue that homosexual desire alone is a choice. He would argue that it’s a disorder and a sin...and like all sinners-who-are-Christians (i.e. every Christian), folks with homosexual tendencies will struggle against sinful desires all their lives. Just like those Christians who struggle with heterosexual sinful desires will struggle with them all their lives.... What else is new???
Our society is becoming thoroughly brainwashed that whatever one sexually desires one should get...and that’s just ridiculous for personal, family and social order, not to mention patently anti-Christian. Just because someone due to a dysfunctional upbringing, and/or even genetics...has certain deviant desires that he didn’t consciously choose doesn’t make them “natural” or a “gift of God” which should be fulfilled.
People DO choose how they are going to live, and who they sleep with (and which desires they will feed...)...and just as the average Joe can’t sleep with every girl he sees who’s hot—and may not be able to sleep with even one (if he never marries) so too, someone who faces deviant sexual desire has no right to fulfill them. There’s a difference between desire and behavior—such is the basis of morality and civilization itself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.