Sunday, November 05, 2006

Long Time Companions


The 'new' gay icon, "David and Jonathan".

These two Biblical figures represent the defence of the same-sex marriage effort lobbied by members of the Gay Agenda. It's a distortion of course, an example of the modern misinterpretation of Scripture.

In truth, David and Jonathan had a very deep friendship and covenant relationship. It is recorded they kissed. Jonathan said he loved David as his own soul. David, in his lament over Jonathan's death proclaimed, "Your love for me was more wonderful than women's love." (2 Sam. 1:26) Sounds gay to modern Western minds, yet we fail to understand the Oriental mind, perhaps evidenced by the war we are in today.

Middle Eastern men do kiss, they do prefer the company of men, it's a cultural thing, especially in ancient times. It was not homosexual, nor was it romantic love these two men were expressing. In Biblical times, sodomy was clearly condemned. In fact it was a hostile and degrading act in most cases.

It's important for us to understand this question of same-sex marriage or unions, which threatens the foundation of our civilization. We need to understand the passions and emotions of those who would subvert the truth of Scripture to coincide with their beliefs, no matter how contrary to natural law. A quote from Chesterton may help us understand the importance of returning to a dispassionate understanding of what marriage consists.

"We shall never return to social sanity until we begin at the beginning. We must start where all history starts, with a man and a woman, and a child, and with the province of liberty and property which these need for their full humanity. As it is (now) we begin where history ends. We judge everything by the particular muddle of the moment." -GKC

A man commented on yesterday's post about same-sex relationships, and I assume he was referring to same-sex marriage in citing examples of gay couples living in an enduring committed relationship. His comments were, I expect, a rebuttal of my using the image of a vampire as a metaphor for promiscuous homosexuality, suggesting that there are homosexuals who live in committed, monogamous unions.

First of all, I need to clarify that not all homosexuals are necessarily predatory or promiscuous, I was referring to an element within that sub-culture. Some men may have a 'homosexual orientation' while not acting upon it. Others who do act upon it and are in relationships may well be naturally disposed to living a monogamous lifestyle. Then there are those who, having begun as homosexual lovers, experience a conversion, reconcile their lives and behavior with the Church, and live as brothers, their friendship remaining chaste and pure, sanctified by prayer and good works. (In his comments on my post, Don Marco cites such cases he has encountered in his pastoral ministry.) Some of these men even find a reversal of homosexual tendencies and no longer identify themselves as homosexual, while never denying their involvement in the past.

As for others, who insist they are gay and in a same-sex union, even those that have endured the test of time, I'm often dubious about their claims. The couples I have known over the years, having normally rejected the teachings of the Church concerning homosexuality, appear to have little or no moral compass. Frequently pornography is an essential element in their 'love making' and one of them often 'sneaks out' for casual sex. Sometimes both engage in "threesomes" to alleviate the tedium of non-productive, mutually exploiting, self-gratifying sex. I have also noted an element of co-dependant behavior is such relationships.

Another blogger commented on yesterday's post saying the Church does not have to explain Herself regarding it's teachings against same-sex unions. That is incorrect. The Church must teach the truth and present the reason behind it. And the Church has indeed done so. There is a compassionate and loving response to the complexity of homosexual orientations - I use orientations in the plural since it impossible to generalize about the motivations and degrees of involvement and practice in the lives of men and women who experience these tendencies. The tendencies remain more or less morally neutral, unless consented to and acted upon - it is like any other temptation proffered by the world, the flesh, and the devil.

Anyone involved in the homosexual lifestyle, or those with friends or family members involved in the life - or who may simply work within a field heavily comprised of gay men or women, would do well to read some of these authors who have written well on the subject.

John F. Harvey, O.S.F.S. - "The Truth About Homosexuality, The Cry of the Faithful."
As well as his, "The Homosexual Person, New Thinking in Pastoral Care." Both published by Ignatius Press.

Benedict Groeschel, C.F.R. - "The Courage To Be Chaste."

And an invaluable resource for better understanding homosexuality, Gerard J.M. Van Den Aardweg, PH.D. - "The Battle For Normality, A Guide For Self-Therapy For Homosexuality."

None of these books are just for homosexuals struggling with same-sex issues, especially in our day when the subject is so politicized and divisive. In order to have a correct understanding of homosexuality, as well as a compassionate acceptance of these persons, it is essential to educate oneself on the subject. It is a huge issue.

2 comments:

  1. I'm tired of hearing the homosexuals claim that they can have long-term committed relationships too so they should be allowed the Sacrament of Marriage.

    Who cares? What they are doing is still a sin.

    This stretching of Biblical stories to support their agenda is getting old.

    In Genesis, God created Adam and Eve, male and female He created them. NOT Adam and Adam.

    ReplyDelete

Anonymous comments will no longer be accepted.
Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. Be sure and double check if your comment posted after you do the verification deal - sometimes it doesn't print if you made an error.