# Pope rants about gay marriage again **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 13, 2006, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-rants-about-gay-marriage-again/356673 "2006-05-13T21:33:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Twotwofive](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@Twotwofive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Twotwofive)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2006, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-rants-about-gay-marriage-again/356673/201 "2006-05-18T09:43:25Z")
[QUOTE=Malacandra] all I need to do is claim that it is a scandalously impious mockery of the act of union that God intended for a man and a woman. I may be wrong, but there’s nothing difficult about the denial. This “nothing more or less” angle won’t wash; I could as well say that burning a witch at the stake is nothing more or less than raising living tissue to combustion temperatures in the presence of an oxidising atmosphere. [/QUOTE] Yes, you could indeed say that, if your aim was to reduce this thread to a debate about semantics. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2006, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-rants-about-gay-marriage-again/356673/202 "2006-05-18T10:29:00Z")
[QUOTE=Twotwofive] Yes, you could indeed say that, if your aim was to reduce this thread to a debate about semantics. [/QUOTE] Well, but what is your point then? You said that the homosexual act is nothing more or less than a pleasurable act between two consenting adults. The point I made was that this “nothing more or less” angle adds zip to the debate. It’s not a question of nitpicking semantics. You might as well say that blasphemy is nothing more or less than someone moving his lips and tongue while air passes through his larynx. By saying “nothing more or less” you are in fact begging the question - the whole point, from the Church’s point of view, is whether or not God has invested the sex act with a significance outweighing the mere physical nature of the activity, and you have assumed as fact that He has not. ---
**Author:** ![Lightray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightray/32/391_2.png) [@Lightray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightray)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2006, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-rants-about-gay-marriage-again/356673/203 "2006-05-18T12:50:16Z")
[QUOTE=Twotwofive] Yes, you could indeed say that, if your aim was to reduce this thread to a debate about semantics. [/QUOTE] Wow, you really _did_ skip over the rest of the thread, didn’t you? ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2006, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-rants-about-gay-marriage-again/356673/204 "2006-05-18T13:35:55Z")
[QUOTE=Lightray] Wow, you really _did_ skip over the rest of the thread, didn’t you? [/QUOTE] 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2006, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-rants-about-gay-marriage-again/356673/205 "2006-05-18T14:14:52Z")
[QUOTE=Polycarp] Huh. And here I thought that the Fourteenth Amendment meant what it said, you know, in the text. \*Makes note: In Bricker’s view, American citizens have no rights not specifically granted by a beneficient state government. \* I agree that all powers not delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution **nor restricted by explicit Constitutional bans or guarantees of rights** are the proper “police power” (and related functions) of the States. I disagree explicitly and vehemently with the statement you make in the quoted post. [/QUOTE] Um… I said, “…and federal law is supreme over state law, so any conflict goes to the feds…” Certainly the Fourteenth Amendment is federal law, as is the entire Constitution. So any explicit Constitutional bans or guarantees of rights are certainly included in what I agreed are restrictions on a state’s plenary power. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2006, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-rants-about-gay-marriage-again/356673/206 "2006-05-18T16:21:37Z")
[QUOTE=Homebrew] So anything a majority wants, no matter how oppressive is okay? Is that really what democracy is about? If so fuck that. [/QUOTE] Yes, and that is precisely why the Founders of the American **Republic** wanted nothing to do with “democracy”, any more than a modern American politician with any hope of respectability would want anything to do with communism or anarchism. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2006, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-rants-about-gay-marriage-again/356673/207 "2006-05-18T18:04:03Z")
This is weird: The Google ads are now all about pirates. 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2006, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-rants-about-gay-marriage-again/356673/208 "2006-05-18T19:43:40Z")
[QUOTE=Malacandra] See, this is getting back to the good arguments I was talking about. It’s been said upthread that homosexuality can’t be a sin 'cos it doesn’t harm anyone else. But half of the Ten Commandments address sins that don’t harm anyone else: the first four, and the last one. Polytheism, idolatry, blasphemy, Sabbath-breaking and covetousness don’t (or needn’t necessarily) harm anyone with the possible exception of the person who does them. So that argument’s a crock too (which does not, of course, prove that buggery\* is a sin; I’m not out to establish that). [/quote] That’s exactly why I had the category of insult to god. Your first three sins only make sense in that context. I think breaking the Sabbath does also, because it is such a strong commandment, far more important than any sex-related ones. Covetuousness is more a sin against others, since it is kind of a gateway sin to theft and adultery. There are lots and lots of rules about ritual purity, and buggery probably is at least a sin in that sense. It can fall under onanism in a way also. Any vaguely literal reading of the OT shows that it was considered a sin, no argument there. > [@](#): > > Concerning the wearing of mixed fabrics, shellfish-eating (ought to be _something_ophagy, but I don’t know my Greek roots well enough), and the modern failure to keep the Sabbath, it’s very much to the point to ask why we should wink at these and foam at the mouth over sodomy\*. But that’s been well discussed already, and I’ve nothing to add. The mixed fabrics rule was a trivial one - reformed annotated Bible that I looked at said that it was to prevent people from putting on priestly drag. But the Sabbath is very important - remember God created it on the seventh day. I’ve never understood why someone claiming to be the Messiah would blow it off. I understand why factory owners and sweatshop managers didn’t think much of it, though. The Sabbath is a very advanced concept. Kind of like the ritual washing of hands - early Christians got rid of that custom, and died of dysnentary. Oops. 🙂 > [@](#): > > And can a person acting as God made him to act be considered to be doing damage to God? I’ll say “yes” to that. We’re all born with some propensity or other, and most of us with the capacity to overcome them, and just about all of us, I should say, to at least recognise that if we can’t overcome them, we can at least acknowledge the fault before God and ask forgiveness. It’s the wilful refusal to either overcome or acknowledge that crosses the line to unacceptability. Here we get into free-wilish issues. Blasphemy is a sin, but if someone has that mental disorder that leads to uncontrolled cursing, can he be blamed? The average person, without this problem, can be. Is it fair for those born without strong sex drives (and priests are self selected for this, I’d guess) judge someone born both gay and horny. Even Paul acknowledged that people needed an outlet for their sex drives (though grudgingly) - why not provide gay people the same outlet? Then we can have a multiple sex partner discussion. Since I was born a natural monagamist, it’s really easy for me to be all high and mighty on this subject. ---
**Author:** ![Lightray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightray/32/391_2.png) [@Lightray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightray)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2006, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-rants-about-gay-marriage-again/356673/209 "2006-05-18T20:18:04Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] That’s exactly why I had the category of insult to god. Your first three sins only make sense in that context. I think breaking the Sabbath does also, because it is such a strong commandment, far more important than any sex-related ones. Covetuousness is more a sin against others, since it is kind of a gateway sin to theft and adultery. There are lots and lots of rules about ritual purity, and buggery probably is at least a sin in that sense. It can fall under onanism in a way also. Any vaguely literal reading of the OT shows that it was considered a sin, no argument there… [/QUOTE] To understand Levitical laws, you really _do_ need to look at them in context. Specifically, the context of a tribal, possibly semi-nomadic people who living in a desert and surrounded by other cultures. The dietary restrictions make more sense if you look at them as ways to avoid food poisoning and diseases. Things spoil quickly in the desert, and technology to preserve some foods was limited. Even today, Kosher foods are often considered cleaner and healthier. Commandments against “coveting” and such keep intra-tribal conflicts to a minimum. You can’t afford conflicts amongst the tribe, when the tribe is threatened by outsiders. Rules against idolatry, buggery, and the like served to distinguish the Israelites from their neighbors. Lying with mankind as with womankind was an abomination because _that’s what their enemy did_. Preserving their culture was vital to the survival of the Israelites. (still is today, actually) If ever possible, I recommend having this discussion with a rabbi. It was kind of a shock to me to realize that maybe the Jewish faith might have more of a handle on this “Old Testament” than my own Christian faith. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2006, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-rants-about-gay-marriage-again/356673/210 "2006-05-18T21:35:41Z")
[QUOTE=Lightray] To understand Levitical laws, you really _do_ need to look at them in context. Specifically, the context of a tribal, possibly semi-nomadic people who living in a desert and surrounded by other cultures. … Rules against idolatry, buggery, and the like served to distinguish the Israelites from their neighbors. Lying with mankind as with womankind was an abomination because _that’s what their enemy did_. Preserving their culture was vital to the survival of the Israelites. (still is today, actually) If ever possible, I recommend having this discussion with a rabbi. It was kind of a shock to me to realize that maybe the Jewish faith might have more of a handle on this “Old Testament” than my own Christian faith. [/QUOTE] Don’t need to - I had five years of Hebrew school. 🙂 Actually, who knows when these laws began. I would expect most were a codification of already existing laws and customs from when the Bible was actually written. It is hard for me to believe that they entirely rewrote the law - perhaps they gave an explicit divine origin for existing priestly law. Any evidence that we ever were a semi-nomadic desert tribe? From the latest I’ve read the origin seems to be hill country around Jerusalem. As for the sins of others, there seems to be a lot of demonization of enemies - something we’re not the least bit over today. I’d want to see independent evidence of cannibalism or child sacrifice. It’s certainly possible, but the Bible is not an unbiased source. The real issue though is if these are god’s commandments, why don’t we have to follow all, and if they aren’t, why follow any without independent justification. I agree that some are still very good ideas. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-rants-about-gay-marriage-again/356673/211 "2006-05-20T12:09:52Z")
As I understand it the Catholic church uses the time when Jesus was supposed to have changed Peter’s name from Simon,(meaning rock) and made him head of His church and said"What you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, What you loose on earth will be loose in heaven". This could well have been put in the New Testament by the monks who were responsible for writing and copying the writings. The Catholic church interpets this to mean the authority of what they call Peter’s successors or the Popes. As always it boils down what a human said God said. Monavis [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-rants-about-gay-marriage-again/356673.md?page=10)