tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post114986643891846514..comments2024-03-06T03:15:58.539-05:00Comments on <b>THE NEW REFORM CLUB</b>: Luther, Calvin, and Gay MarriageHunter Bakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-7281567950012803282011-09-12T19:19:13.235-04:002011-09-12T19:19:13.235-04:00Firstly I think this is a well written and calm di...Firstly I think this is a well written and calm discussion. I hope I don't damage that by saying its sad to see that scripture can blind people to witnessing and celebrating love. <br />On topic, Luthers views have to be assessed in light of his belief that he lived in the end times. He was thinking short term when he condoned suppression of a peasants revolt for example. He wasn't necessarily proposing a long term principle of government.<br />That's similar to the early church attitudes to slavery (and women's leadership). They need to be heard in the context of expecting the imminent return of Christ - not as if 2000 yrs of slavery was anticipated.<br />It is taking a long term view that encourages religious people who have power to nethertheless eschew power because the wheel of fortune turns. That's why refugees from Anglicanism argued for the separation of Church and state in forming the U.S. It wasn't tolerance or kindness but enlightened self-interest.<br />So what does a long term self-interested (for your faith) view encourage in regard to gay marriage? For the wheel is turning.Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07412650446530771853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1150295635009910262006-06-14T10:33:00.000-04:002006-06-14T10:33:00.000-04:00Tom, thanks for the link to the NY Times article. ...Tom, thanks for the link to the <I>NY Times</I> article. As to Luther's opionion of what makes a legitimate government, that's an interesting question. I'll defer to Hunter on that, as he has just finished reading a good deal of Luther, but at this point I'd note that Luther did not base legitimacy on a particular set of policies or form of government. In fact, I'm not at all certain that he expressed much concern over the legitimacy of governments, as such. Here Hunter can be of much assistance, I suspect. As to Aquinas, church and state were more intertwined in his thinking than they have been since the Reformation, which is a good rough measure of Luther's influence.S. T. Karnickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05971214612730402709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1150159760610731672006-06-12T20:49:00.000-04:002006-06-12T20:49:00.000-04:00The question, and Mr. Baker's in particular, isn't...The question, and Mr. Baker's in particular, isn't what the state thinks of Christianity, but what Christianity thinks of the state.<BR/><BR/>I think Luther is not in agreement, but Aquinas and Jefferson would agree (and I believe stated explicitly) that when the state exercises a tyranny over the individual conscience, its authority is no longer legitimate.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/10/us/10beliefs.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin" REL="nofollow">Word up.</A>Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1150155005244121172006-06-12T19:30:00.000-04:002006-06-12T19:30:00.000-04:00Apparently something I wrote was taken as rude or ...Apparently something I wrote was taken as rude or attacking someone. Such was not my intent, but I apologize for leaving any such impression.<BR/><BR/>"Social science explicitly aims at rendering value-free judgements, so it's of no help here." - TVD<BR/><BR/>I would argue that this is perhaps a more black and white reading of what actually occurs, and certainly a misreading of what I was writing, but it's a conversation for elsewhere, and one where Tom and I, I think, will forever come down on opposite sides.<BR/><BR/>"Mr. Elliott, your interpretation of Luther's political views is tendentious and incorrect."<BR/><BR/>A Protestant gets mad at me and a Catholic has similar thoughts along the same line as mine. Intriguing.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1150153062364660052006-06-12T18:57:00.000-04:002006-06-12T18:57:00.000-04:00Again, the first amendment was written to affect t...Again, the first amendment was written to affect the federal government, which for a long time was a lot less than half of the equation. States had established churches at the time of ratification and it was explicitly understood those were unaffected. <BR/><BR/>As to the question of how a secular state stands with relation to God, even if you have a secular state (which we do), that doesn't mean citizens aren't free to lobby and vote from a religious point of view, thus rendering secularism purely structural rather than substantive.Hunter Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1150143807422263472006-06-12T16:23:00.000-04:002006-06-12T16:23:00.000-04:00A simple reading of the first amendment emphatical...A simple reading of the first amendment emphatically does not establish what you say it does. It simply says what Congress will not do and leaves the decision in the hands of the states. It has been interpreted in something like the fashion you suggest, but that is far from "a simple reading."<BR/><BR/>In addition, to say that God doesn't enter into a contract between human beings is silly and artificial. It's sort of a "well, if you say so" kind of thing. But I wouldn't count on it to keep God out or to keep believers from counting God in on their account.Hunter Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1150126294844681852006-06-12T11:31:00.000-04:002006-06-12T11:31:00.000-04:00Mr. Elliott, your interpretation of Luther's polit...Mr. Elliott, your interpretation of Luther's political views is tendentious and incorrect.S. T. Karnickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05971214612730402709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1150061148611956262006-06-11T17:25:00.000-04:002006-06-11T17:25:00.000-04:00Tom, there is no getting around it. Again, I'm no...Tom, there is no getting around it. Again, I'm not suggesting that Luther's insight renders the debate null. What I am doing is suggesting it takes the Christian to a different place in determining how to proceed. The end result may well be the same.Hunter Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1150054761301125422006-06-11T15:39:00.000-04:002006-06-11T15:39:00.000-04:00Not exactly accurate, HB, if we recall this author...Not exactly accurate, HB, if we recall this author's historic monograph <A HREF="http://reformclub.blogspot.com/2005_11_01_reformclub_archive.html" REL="nofollow">St. Thomas and the Ho's</A> from these very same cyberpages.<BR/><BR/>There's a distinction between benign indifference and creating new norms (or obliterating the present ones). There's no groundswell among gay marriage opponents to reinstate sodomy laws or overturn <I>Lawrence v. Texas</I>, for instance.<BR/><BR/>As for Luther, there's still the peasant revolt. The idea was not to embarrass him but to propose that he was less than unconcerned with the powers of the state.<BR/><BR/>And I still don't see how to get around our own citizenship in a democracy and the duties of conscience visited on a sovereign.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1149988119435972302006-06-10T21:08:00.000-04:002006-06-10T21:08:00.000-04:00Oh, Tommy boy. You dinged James about niceness, b...Oh, Tommy boy. You dinged James about niceness, but the shot at Luther wasn't very sweet either. It's true that he took a swing at the Jews late in life, but that's not completely fair. Earlier on he had been very philo-semitic. Though I'm no expert, he may well have been a bit off his game toward the end. <BR/><BR/>Luther was a guy who not only wrote constantly, but who also had people hanging around taking notes about everything he said. Thus, we know about his bowel movements,his feelings about beer, and his thoughts about the Jews while cranky!<BR/><BR/>You should understand that I'm not claiming to have set out some complete framework that solves all problems. I'm just looking at gay marriage and some different models of the Christian view of the state that can help me decide how to approach the issue. Luther's instrumental view is appealing. That's all I'm saying, bro.<BR/><BR/>Even if we do get into natural law, though, there are still problems about what legislation we should pass. Aquinas thought prostitution was harmful per the natural law, but that it might be even more harmful to outlaw it!Hunter Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1149979121718494842006-06-10T18:38:00.000-04:002006-06-10T18:38:00.000-04:00And I'm sorry my analogy was inadequate, James. F...And I'm sorry my analogy was inadequate, James. Firstly, it was shorthand for the complex subject of virtue, secondly, mundane analogies to First Things are always vulnerable because of their inherent insufficiency, and that insufficiency leads to the analogy being argued with and not the underlying concept.<BR/><BR/>I did not want to do "virtue" an injustice. It is crucial here, whether taken theologically or in the Aristotelian sense as a base for the Founders' political philosophy. Unlike the moderns, who are hard-pressed to defend liberty (or anything non-material) as inherently good, the classical liberals saw the pursuit of virtue as the purpose of fostering liberty, and thus why liberty carries an inherent good.<BR/><BR/>Especially since European history to that point made it clear to them that our definitions of virtue will vary somewhat.<BR/><BR/>Virtue and therefore liberty are abstractions, then, at least for practical purposes, if you get my drift.<BR/><BR/>And so, ironically, it's I who have hijacked this thread. My intention was to slip you a few cribnotes to include you in the discussion, so that you'd continue to be a valuable auditor of this all, with no horse in the race yourself. The core question is how Christian theology and the duties of moral conscience deal with citizenship in our democracy. I think.<BR/><BR/>My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar, and I must pause till it come back to me.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1149975465514454532006-06-10T17:37:00.000-04:002006-06-10T17:37:00.000-04:00And we were playing so nice. I was not expecting ...And we were playing so nice. I was not expecting to convince you, I was explaining why I did not expect to. I thought you wanted to learn the vocabulary of the Other, so I used it.<BR/><BR/>As noted, our conflict is not between reason and revelation; we are not that deep, or perhaps we're deeper: the dispute is between the classical and the modern.<BR/><BR/>Social science explicitly aims at rendering value-free judgements, so it's of no help here. And modernism places its faith in not just reason, but empirical reason, that social science can definitively answer whether or not something is harmful. But the best it can do is assert statistical tendencies. It cannot truly say what is harmless, because it cannot say what is good, except in its own material terms.<BR/><BR/>So the discussion doesn't take long with modernism: unless something is proven "harmful" right here, right now, it shall be held harmless and in the name of "liberty" it should be countenanced. Immediately.<BR/><BR/>OK. Done.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1149972641901057902006-06-10T16:50:00.000-04:002006-06-10T16:50:00.000-04:00"The best I can offer is a non-biblical yet still ..."The best I can offer is a non-biblical yet still classical examination of virtue. Aristotle (and Mr. Huisman, I think) would submit that eating sawdust isn't harmless, because it substitutes for nourishment."<BR/><BR/>Well, I would agree that it's useless, but rather because as an analogy it's completely stupid. It's totally outside the realms of both applicability and probability. It's removed from the context of the discussion. Reduction to abstracts is to place an interesting conflict in absurdity.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1149968376323689162006-06-10T15:39:00.000-04:002006-06-10T15:39:00.000-04:00Well, it's tough to straddle the Bible and Aristot...Well, it's tough to straddle the Bible and Aristotle, but that's just what Aquinas attempts to do with his concept of natural law.<BR/>Truth is truth, he might argue.<BR/><BR/>It's fair to say there's tension between the two, between Athens and Jerusalem, as they like to say, but it's interesting that the great medieval thinkers (the Muslims Ibn Rushd and al-Farabi, the Jew Maimonides, and the Christian Aquinas) all attempted to resolve it.<BR/><BR/>The tension can't be resolved, of course, but the real problem is that the moderns don't even try, placing virtue and expedience in non-intersecting spheres.<BR/><BR/>The best I can offer is a non-biblical yet still classical examination of virtue. Aristotle (and Mr. Huisman, I think) would submit that eating sawdust isn't harmless, because it substitutes for nourishment.<BR/><BR/>But to a social scientist, even arguments like that are useless, I think. Our real conflict isn't between Athens and Jerusalem, but between Athens and Paris.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1149966187522135942006-06-10T15:03:00.000-04:002006-06-10T15:03:00.000-04:00Tom, that last post of yours (2:23pm) was very elo...Tom, that last post of yours (2:23pm) was very eloquent and well-reasoned. I liked it very much. It also helped me to understand your thought processes better than anything else up to this point.<BR/><BR/>This is something I wanted to say below in the natural law post, but the thread is too far buried and I was far too late. You spoke of first principles and natural law. My thought is that, at some point, first principles rely upon an assumption of value and existence. Now, this is not the same as questioning their value. Just because they are assumptions doesn't rob them of their importance; I would argue that such principles are worthwhile and valuable. My concern is, always, the underlying assumptions of truth to such principles. When it comes to morality, religion, ethics, and truth, we are picking something as the base for our future reasoning. And this is fine; not choosing leads to paralysis (a problem with modern thinkers). The key is to make your choice while acknowledging that you could be wrong and being prepared to deal with such consequences.<BR/><BR/>Which brings us to the idea of intrinsic harm or cost in natural law. When I see such discussions, I see them resting on assumptions at the bottom. Take the kind and thoughtful Matt Huisman: He sees behavior and feeling (such as homosexuality) that is contrary to the purpose he views of life - to bring one closer to worship of God (I hope I haven't oversimplified that too much). But at the foundation, it's a judgment call (there's a God and life should be lived as worship of Him; if your life runs counter to worship, you are hurting yourself).<BR/><BR/>The question I'd pose to you, Tom, is whether or not the "costs" or "harm" of homosexuality are cultural/societal or "natural" - that is, physical or psychological I would argue that they are the former, and not of a fundamental nature to those institutions, rendering them harmless.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1149965147920697472006-06-10T14:45:00.000-04:002006-06-10T14:45:00.000-04:00James, this conversation is super-relevant. We are...<I>James, this conversation is super-relevant. We are living in a predominantly Christian nation with at least a third of voters seriously motivated by their faith.</I><BR/><BR/>Perhaps I'm inserting myself in here untowardly, since my knowledge of theology is pretty limited. My training is as a political/social scientist (perhaps thinker is a more apt term), not a philosopher/theologian, and if there's one thing I've learned, the two think very differently, even on the same subjects. Honestly, I'm just trying to learn more here, rather than insert contrary thought for the sake of contrariness. I do think it's critical to keep conversations within their critical contexts: Removing Luther the theologian from Luther the political animal and the historical context in which he lives is a disservice to honest discourse.<BR/><BR/>My thought is this: Can the state, even in a democracy, adhere fully to the principles of the majority without becoming a tyranny to the minority? This is an especially pertinent question in the context of American government. This question is not limited to Christian faiths, but I'll do so in the spirit of the conversation.<BR/><BR/>My clumsily made point above was that Christians have made accomodations with the limitations of the state before, and existed in perfect harmony with it. Only the most fringe of Christians lament that they cannot stand outside the Power Exchange (a notorious sex club in San Francisco) and stone people as they exit for unchastity. <BR/><BR/>Even in Plato's day, the problem wasn't homosexuality in Greece; it was sex purely for pleasure, without an emotional component or regard for the other. Hedonism, pleasure without responsibility or purpose, was the danger.<BR/><BR/>It seems that the real question to ask is whether rights and morals must be linked. In the American system, government's purpose is justice, as Hunter stated, but that justice is based on the idea of rights, not morality. It seems that, in order for the instrumentality of state as an organ of religion (whether subservient or equals) must rest on two questions: Are morals the same things as rights, deserving of the same weight? And are morals inextricably linked to the things that influence them, like Christianity?James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1149964276499405122006-06-10T14:31:00.000-04:002006-06-10T14:31:00.000-04:00TVD>> As Mr. Huisman points out, natural law theo...<B>TVD>></B> <I>As Mr. Huisman points out, natural law theory would proscribe that which is harmful and not just on a humbug alone.</I><BR/><BR/><B>James>></B> <I>Bus is that really His will? And do you really think it matters?</I><BR/><BR/>One point of clarification here – my definition of harm is fairly expansive. We have become quite good at dodging (more like delaying) consequences these days, and may be tempted to conclude that these 'avoidances' grant us license to all sorts of taboo behavior.<BR/><BR/>But harm is more than immediate pain; there is an opportunity cost component to it as well. God’s design does more than protect us; it draws us to Him. This is where we can start to see how all of life is worship. We all have a need to be filled with a sense of wonder and gratitude by something, and our behavior both reflects and reinforces the who/what we choose to fill it. Lewis and Zacharias call this an appreciation love, and God’s concern with our behavior flows from His concern for our ultimate end – the who/what we choose to worship.Matt Huismanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09972662349345412127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1149963827558114002006-06-10T14:23:00.000-04:002006-06-10T14:23:00.000-04:00Well, I'm not surprised I'm not getting your point...Well, I'm not surprised I'm not getting your point, HB, since I don't know my Luther. (But I spent last night with him.)<BR/><BR/>The NT understanding of government I'd think was predicated on it being the enemy and the oppressor (Rome) at the time. And Luther's time still was one of kings and princes. What is our role as sovereigns (voters) in a democracy?<BR/><BR/>Now if one informs his conscience by scripture alone, I suppose that's fine; in a way it doesn't matter if one comes to his morals from the Oracle of the Unholy Weasel, everybody gets a vote.<BR/><BR/>But scriptural arguments won't hold much sway, and are indeed anaethema (!) to those who don't accept them as inherently true. At least natural law tries to speak a ("the") more universal language.<BR/><BR/>My fondness for natural law arguments in secular society is that they (logic term here) are not arguments from authority, they claim deviations from it are intrinsically harmful. If the Bible and natural law are in harmony, then the Bible is also empirically true, altho it need not be counterproductively thumped in order to guide our ordering of society.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure I'm confused at your invoking Luther at all, because I find him in favor of solving the "Jewish question" with the power of the state, if you're familiar with his most infamous tract. But the "Jewish question" is beyond the purview of natural law. And if homosexual activity is a question only of eternal reward or condemnation, then it too lies outside natural law and thereby any politics. (And I had the same thought as Mr. Elliott re the peasant revolt.)<BR/><BR/><BR/>But perhaps your question is on the nature of government itself. The classical view (shared by the Founders) is that it promotes virtue and thereby self-governance. But the modern view is that it is for the purpose of improving man's estate, adjudged basically by a materialist set of standards.<BR/><BR/>Now if our democracy ends up accepting that view (and we're at a tipping point, and virtue is expelled from our polity, then I suppose Christians are no longer a real component of the sovereign, "we the people," and it's time to join the Jehovah's Witnesses in near-total disengagement from such things.<BR/><BR/>There seems to be a strong streak in Christianity that the world is evil anyway, and if so, disengagement from its ways seems a proper course. A little too Manichean and Epicurean for me, but what do I know?<BR/><BR/>Am I getting any closer?Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1149963644208899532006-06-10T14:20:00.000-04:002006-06-10T14:20:00.000-04:00Mr. Elliott's untoward remark about Luther's polit...<I>Mr. Elliott's untoward remark about Luther's political consistency can be forgiven as the product of ignorance. Luther's political principles were firm, consistent, and deep, which is why he was able to respond flexibly to changing circumstances.</I><BR/><BR/>"Changing circumstances" is a pleasant euphemism. Luther's "consistent" principles actively laid the seeds for the fomentation of a peasant revolt - based on pretty interesting precursors to democratic principles - and then, when those peasants and their burgeoning principles threatened the authority of the nobles sheltering him from papal fury, Luther turned around and condemned them. His theological principles remained sound; his political views appear somewhat more... relative.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1149950036466743472006-06-10T10:33:00.000-04:002006-06-10T10:33:00.000-04:00Tom, I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying...Tom, I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying Luther would be in favor of some kind of heavy separation of government from morality. The decision to have the government restrain evil is itself a moral decision. I'm speaking more about the relationship of scripture to the actions of government and how Christians should view that.Hunter Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1149943887849234402006-06-10T08:51:00.000-04:002006-06-10T08:51:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Hunter Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1149902637785717412006-06-09T21:23:00.000-04:002006-06-09T21:23:00.000-04:00Luther's thoughts on the 6th Commandment may be he...<A HREF="http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/catechism/web/cat-07.html" REL="nofollow">Luther's thoughts on the 6th Commandment</A> may be helpful here. In that he thinks men and women were designed to be married, which conforms to a natural law teleology of sex, it's dificult to imagine him down with Adam and Steve.<BR/><BR/>As to Luther's thoughts on a separation of government and morality, I would be willing to listen, but it seems out of character for him since <A HREF="http://www.mlode.com/~ra/ra3/castingstones.htm" REL="nofollow">elsewhere he seems quite vociferously against the state's (and Aquinas' [reluctant]) toleration of prostitution</A>. (Sorry, I can't locate Luther's source document "Thoughts on Brothels" online.)<BR/><BR/>But interesting stuff. I'm no Luther scholar, so I'm sure there are contrary theses.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1149901939178103452006-06-09T21:12:00.000-04:002006-06-09T21:12:00.000-04:00Thanks, S.T.James, this conversation is super-rele...Thanks, S.T.<BR/><BR/>James, this conversation is super-relevant. We are living in a predominantly Christian nation with at least a third of voters seriously motivated by their faith. Determining whether the state is sacred or merely instrumental has a big impact on members of our community would see something like gay marriage. It's anything but academic. I'm trying to figure it out for myself, as well.Hunter Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1149899148527727352006-06-09T20:25:00.000-04:002006-06-09T20:25:00.000-04:00Hunter, your analysis of the three positions you p...Hunter, your analysis of the three positions you present, although of course not definitively worked out (as you freely admit), is definitely on the right track and a very useful perspective, in my view. Your thoughts on how Luther would have seen the political issue at hand are very interesting and have much force. (Mr. Elliott's untoward remark about Luther's political consistency can be forgiven as the product of ignorance. Luther's political principles were firm, consistent, and deep, which is why he was able to respond flexibly to changing circumstances.) I think that your suggested approach to gay marriage, derived as it is from your studied understanding of Luther, is an excellent one. I hope that you will wrote more on this particular subject and on how Luther's principles can be applied to other topics as well. This is very bracing stuff!S. T. Karnickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05971214612730402709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1149897530576750582006-06-09T19:58:00.000-04:002006-06-09T19:58:00.000-04:00For the record, Mr. Elliott, prohibitions aganst h...For the record, Mr. Elliott, prohibitions aganst homosexuality don't appear only in the Book of Leviticus, but in the New Testament epistles of St. Paul as well, unaccompanied by the other stuff you mention.<BR/><BR/>Jesus Himself is silent on the subject, but considers sex with a non-spouse as sinful. Like the constitution, He has no ban or approval for gay marriage.<BR/><BR/>Per the discussion proper, the Bible does not address the problem of democracy, that the people are sovereign, and we are the people. The government and the believer are not so easily bifurcated in a democracy.<BR/><BR/>As Mr. Huisman points out, natural law theory would proscribe that which is harmful and not just on a humbug alone. It seems to me that the individual must inform his conscience and decide whether homosexual activity is intrinsically harmful, then exercise his sovereign duties pro or con with his vote as a member of a democracy.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com