 |
| Parthenon from west (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Moral norms are not established by Special Revelation (i.e. the Bible) they are established by
General Revelation. General revelation is readily available for all people to observe in the environment around them. This is what Paul is discussing in
Romans 1:20 (
KJV) "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." This is commonly known as
Natural Moral Law Theory. It is important for the Christian to understand this because it is a tool that can be used to witness to anyone from any religious background. It is an argument from logic that is supported by scripture.
Natural moral law theory implies that we discover morality and not invent it to fit out lifestyle. As
C. S. Lewis put it, the great majority of civilizations have acknowledged “the doctrine of objective value, the belief that certain attitudes are really true, and others really false…."
Both moral justice and moral law derive their origins from four principles:
1. What nature (and Nature's God) has given to man.
Only an irrational person would claim that there is no nature by which all the universe is governed. We must distinguish then first that nature has laws that are physical and meta-physical (meta-physical means the nonobservable characteristics of the universe, such as the universe had a beginning but that cannot be observed). Physical truths such as gravity are laws that cannot be rationally denied were as meta-physical truths, such as the existence of logic, consciousness, numbers, and existence itself, require more intellectual exercise to discern. However both are immutable.
Physical and meta-physical laws cannot be denied; they are a part of the universe and can be either observed or logically discerned. Such as the sin of homosexuality, this is not a natural process from which offspring is produced. Offspring is the product of nature in order to propagate itself. It's practice is a violation of the very nature of man.
2. From the distinctiveness of the human consciousness.
Morality solely exists for the purpose of humans. The universe does not need morality to function therefore moral laws exist for the purpose of man. This moral distinctiveness of the human consciousness means that man has an obligation to abide by moral laws. People are quick to point out when someone is in error. People jump at the opportunity expose your faults. This is because man has an instinctual moral obligation to correct a perceived falsehood. If anyone denies this then do not bother to rebuttal this because you would be exercising the very objective moral value I am describing.
The nature of the physical and meta-physical laws shows that every idea and action has a philosophical consequence. Since man is a rational being we are bound to the laws of logic to discern moral law.
3. From the function of man.
By using the cognitive processes of your mind and the natural abilities man has through nature, a person is able to function in the world and find their purpose. For the purpose of helping others, educating the ignorant, feeding the hungry, producing goods and services for others, being a father, a mother or a sibling. There are also those more noble and higher functions of man such as worship and piety and being an example to others.
No other creature claims to have purpose. No other creature feels an obligation to do and act within the world they live in. No other creature has the ability of abstract thinking so they can determine consequences and be certain of principles they have not observed. In other words no other creature has faith that their contribution will have affects on others in the world.
4. From what serves to unite humanity as a society.
Sin divides people. The nature of truth is that it is naturally and mutually exclusive and not inclusive. Therefore truth unites people and lies divide us. Sin gives disunity. Sin corrupts the good; it is contagious on the whole population.
In the last century, the Soviet Union took atheism to its fullest conclusion. Christians were killed and imprisoned. Every human vice was allowed. The homosexual community became a normal staple in their society until it reached a point that the population growth stopped.
The ethical values of classical antiquity were not usually based on religious norms, which merely indicated ritual purity and impurity, nor on any precise authority. Their more or less binding moral force was based on social consensus, which led to a sense of honour or shame, psychological repercussions extremely strong in ancient society. In specific cases the transgressor could be accused of infamia, which entailed partial or total exclusion from society and from the enjoyment of the civil rights reserved to citizens. Spiritual guides were not priests but philosophers, and in certain respects, poets and writers in general. Aided by extant works, we can only partially reconstruct the ancient mentality and corresponding behaviour, which moreover, were not those of the plebeian masses, of which we know little. Furthermore, any discussion of classical civilization is always somewhat imprecise, since we have no way of comparing the differences between cities and between peoples. This introduction helps us understand the relativity of ancient local
moral codes, which cannot be generalized in an overall reconstruction.
Ancient Greece
The Romans called male homosexuality practiced with adolescents or, more precisely, ephebic love, the "
Greek vice" (Horace, Ep. 2, 1, 156). They rightly said that it was unknown in more
ancient Roman times. It was something totally foreign to the traditional Roman mentality; therefore they absolutely condemned it. However in Horace's time it had gained a certain foothold in
Rome, where it took various forms. Cicero wrote: "It seems to me that this habit of loving boys originated in the Greek gymnasiums, where these love affairs are free and tolerated" (Tusculanae 4, 33). Scholars dispute the origins of the pervasive practice of male homosexuality in classical Greece: whether it developed as a consequence of ancient initiation rites or from the custom of completely separating men from "decent" women, who were enclosed and inaccessible in the gynaeceum, i.e., the living quarters reserved for their use. The boys being trained to take full part in the city's political and social life would be educated in the city gymnasiums, from which girls were excluded.
Female homosexuality was virtually unknown; the only information we have concerns the period when Sappho lived in Greece, the seventh to sixth centuries B. C. Later, since it was not socially acceptable, it was not mentioned. On the other hand, male homosexuality in the form of ephebic love was widespread and highly praised, particularly in classical Athens. Not every type of homosexual love was socially acceptable, only what corresponded to certain moral norms of the city-state. First of all, it was only permissible between free citizens. The courting of a free citizen by a slave and vice versa was not approved, because loving a slave, even if he were young, did not achieve the goal of training and education, since the slave was not a citizen; nor was male prostitution tolerated by society. Homosexual love, which could also be expressed physically, was primarily spiritual and intellectual; the adult involved had pedagogical goals for the adolescent.
A Beroean law forbade certain categories of people from attending the gymnasium where the boys were, to avoid "unworthy" love affairs. The boy was to be courted with seriousness and commitment, even with gifts, and he had to be shown the sincerity of one's love and intellectual involvement. Only adolescents (eronomoi) from 12 to 17 years were eligible to be loved, and not younger boys or adults. It was a disgrace to seduce little boys, since they were not considered capable yet of choosing their own lovers. If a boy who had been the object of love since adolescence continued to have a passive role as an adult, he would be sharply criticized. Society accepted homosexual relationships only between an adult and an adolescent. The adult could be married and have a wife and children as well as his pais, his boy. Only someone who took a passive role with his partner was considered depraved, not the homosexual as such. Moreover, only the male prostitute, who sold his love, was condemned. Male prostitution was punished with the loss of political and civil rights but the client was not penalized. The ancients did not oppose heterosexual love to homosexual love, which could exist simultaneously, as much as the passive and active roles. The latter was typical of male adults, while the former, instead, was typical of women and boys (paides).
At the root of this Greek concept, probably dating to an earlier period, was the idea that heterosexual relations gave physical life to an individual, but only the relationship between a mature adult and a boy prepared the latter for social and political life. However, such a relationship was socially and legally acceptable only if it did not last beyond the age limit prescribed for the adolescent, who was then obliged to adopt a different attitude. This different sexual attitude was expressed both as husband, hence in a heterosexual relationship, and as erastes, that is, the lover and educator of a young favourite for the sake of his involvement in city life. Classical-era Greeks were passively homosexual in their youth and heterosexual as adults, while continuing to have homosexual relationships with adolescents. This love was also sought for an intellectual exchange with adolescents, since this was impossible with women, who were held in low esteem as being incapable of fruitful spiritual and cultural communion. For this reason, an ordinary Greek man was tempted by boys rather than by women. When beauty was discussed, it was usually that of young men, not that of women. For many Greek thinkers homosexual love for boys was superior to heterosexual love, because the latter stemmed from the natural need for procreation and thus was inferior to homosexual love, whose sole aim was aesthetics and communion. There was a widespread conviction that true love was impossible with a woman; marriage was regarded as necessary and for this reason protected by law, but it was not considered as the fruit of love, nor sought with love in mind. Nevertheless, all that has been said does not mean that Greeks were permitted to express their bisexuality freely, even if they were men. Indeed, men were permitted neither to express their feelings nor to follow their personal urges. The Greek adult man had to have his homosexual experiences at the proper time, with the proper individuals and according to the proper rules" (E. Cantarella, Secondo natura, Milan 1995, p. 171).
The law regulated and restricted homosexual love, so that it would only further the citizen's formation and not degenerate into "vulgar" affairs. Since lesbian love had no importance for the life of the city, if it existed it was not mentioned and was not regulated by law. For this reason almost nothing is known about it. The "decent" woman in the gynaeceum, physically and spiritually separated from men, was not a person with whom a communion of life could be established. She was meant to continue reproduction and was useful to the city only insofar as she bore citizens. The normal woman was destined to marry a man she had not chosen; she had no escape, except to something worse. However, although this matrimonial union was imposed on the wife, it could blossom into a sincere love for her husband. Since the woman was unable to imagine a situation different from what was her lot, she spent her married life in submission and dedication to her husband with absolute respect for him. The non-slave women who had the greatest freedom were the hetaerae, the courtesans, who provided musical entertainment and dancing at banquets, which were also a time and place for love. Basically, in ancient Greece there was no "marital morality" as we find in imperial Rome. Since ephebic love did not exclude relationships with women, it was very different from the modern concept of homosexuality and is difficult for us to understand, as it must have been difficult to live it in the context of Athenian civilization with its own rigorous moral code.
It is not easy to say how socially or geographically widespread this ephebic love was in a given city. As a typical phenomenon of the city-state at the peak of its splendour, it was a feature more of the "elite" than of the mass of citizens, and it decreased with the decline of the city-state and of the gymnasium's social and educational function. In the Roman era, there was open hostility, with some exceptions, to this kind of love, until it was explicitly condemned by law.
The classical Roman world
In Rome, the cultural, political and family environment gave rise to a different attitude towards male homosexual acts; the "Greek vice" was criticized, as has already been said. In the Roman tradition, the purpose of education was to train a truly virile citizen capable, also sexually, of dominating and never of being dominated. Thus ephebic love never acquired the role, importance and extent it had in the cities of Greece; this was also because, in Rome, the period of adolescence was shorter. Homosexuality was primarily a personal and private matter, determined by the individual's inclinations or by fashion, and so not to be displayed publicly. As such, it was not socially or legally accepted. It was sometimes practiced among slaves; the master (dominus), as an absolute power with unlimited authority in his own large family, could take advantage of his slave girls as well as his slave boys. Its practice was therefore very restricted, because it was not socially encouraged and because of the freedom of movement enjoyed by the free citizen. In some cases, the master, as an expression of his own authority and to humiliate the person beneath him, slave or free, could abuse him. Even when ephebic love become more common in Rome among the upper classes and as a result of the influence of Greek culture, it never acquired the ethical and pedagogical justification it had had in Greece; it had no rules or regulations.
Freeborn boys, i.e. the children of citizens, were protected by Roman law from being courted, as though they were the children of married women - which was not the case in Greece- as well as from any abuse. The law punished pederasty with free boys, even if they consented (stuprum cum puero), but not with slaves, who were not taken into consideration by society or its legislation; male prostitution and sexual passivity were also prohibited (lex Scatnia). This law in fact, at least with regard to the second aspect, was not often enforced. Male and female prostitutes were considered infames and, as such, were deprived of certain civil rights. The term stuprum meant any kind of sexual relations that were not with one's wife or official concubine.
The Roman attitude during the first century of our era was summarized in the following way by the lawyer of a freedman accused of having a relationship with his former master: "Indecency (the passive relationship with another man) is a crime for a free man, a necessity for the slave and a duty for the freedman" (Seneca, Controversiae, 4 praef. 10). The very fact that they wanted to try a freedman, who was still bound to the man who had violated him, shows that there were legal ambiguities; a free man, however, who had a relationship with another free man committed a crimen, and therefore even without a denunciation the magistrate was obliged to try him.
Later developments
This was the situation in Rome when the Greek concept of homosexuality, then in decline in Greece itself, had reached the point of its greatest influence. The law had tried to control it but had not succeeded. As a more effective deterrent, there was widespread disapproval of this conduct. When men of letters came to speak of love for boys, did they do so merely to follow a Greek fashion or was something else involved? The lex Scatinia mentioned above was completely forgotten. But during the second and third centuries of our era, the imperial authorities developed a greater aversion to male prostitution as something disgraceful and reprehensible. This aversion came about through a general change in mentality which occurred even before the possibility of Christian influence, in both the Greek and Roman worlds. In fact, a common ethic had been spreading throughout the Roman Empire.
The most widespread philosophical schools taught the practice of abstinence, especially from sex. The medical texts of this period insisted on the importance for man's health (there was no concern for women in this area) of a sound physical life and advised, in particular, moderation in sexual activity (cf. A. Rousselle, Sesso e societa, Rome/Bari 1983, pp. 11ff.). Sometimes doctors themselves did not recommend homosexual relations for reasons of physical and mental health rather than on the basis of moral values. Soranus, a second-century physician, considered homosexuality the disease of a corrupt mind (Cantarella, p. 260). Even if philosophers, the true spiritual guides of the age, and famous doctors were addressing society's upper class, nevertheless a common tendency to asceticism and self-control was spreading. In this context Christian preaching, which in sexual matters was rooted in the Jewish tradition, was most successful. In the fourth century times and sensitivities had undergone a profound change and imperial legislation - it is hard to know whether or not this was due to Christian influence - began to intervene heavily in the area of homosexuality.
In 342 (Codex Theodosianus, 9, 7, 3,) the first law was enacted in Milan regarding passive homosexuals. Harsher penalties were introduced by Theodosius I in a law addressed to the prefect of Rome in 390, with execution by burning for "those given to the infamy of condemning the male body, transformed into the female, to the toleration of practices reserved for the other sex" (Coll. Legum Mos. et Rom., 5.3). This law was inserted in the Theodosian Code of 438 (9, 7, 6), but substantially modified and with a wider scope. The new compilation condemned to burning all passive homosexuals without distinction. With the Emperor Justinian the legislation was broadened; every kind of homosexuality was repeatedly condemned with the death penalty. Theodosius gave as his reason the desire to rid Rome, "the mother of all virtues", from all contamination. Justinian also added religious reasons. The Theodosian laws, followed by those of Justinian in the Corpus Iuris, represent the heritage which late Roman law was to leave to posterity.
Everyone has the right to judge! Yes some people do not have morals that is what the 4 moral laws show, that people are violating the universal moral law. How long do you suppose our society can get away with this before it collapses due to the consequences? The former Soviet Union did not even last 50 years under it's pro-homosexual laws before the collapse of the family unit was so apparent that the country began to collapse. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia of 1930 written by medical expert Sereisky states "Soviet legislation does not recognize so-called crimes against morality. Our laws proceed from the principle of protection of society and therefore countenance punishment only in those instances when juveniles and minors are the objects of homosexual interest ... while recognizing the incorrectness of homosexual development ... our society combines prophylactic and other therapeutic measures with all the necessary conditions for making the conflicts that afflict homosexuals as painless as possible and for resolving their typical estrangement from society within the collective" (Sereisky, Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1930, p. 593). Between the years of 1917 and 1933 marked a free and legal environment for homosexuality in Russia.
In 1933, a new law was enacted called Article 121 which prohibited male homosexuality with a sentence of five years hard labor. The Soviet society had become so corrupted and family unfriendly that harsh government intervention was required.
In 1986, Mikhail Gorbachev was forced to institute new "training" laws to combat homosexuality. The public school began to teach heterosexual and family values. It stands to reason that it was one of the interior issues that eventually collapsed the Soviet Union.
History testifies to the contrary. How do you define equal? If a gay person is a victim of theft, will not the police come and investigate the crime just as anyone else? If a gay person commits a crime (say child endangerment) will they not be punished equally under the law as anyone else? Yes they will. What the LGBT movement today is not equal rights, but the power to redefine marriage, change moral norms, and force everyone else to accept it. That is not equal, that is tyranny and it does not sound like "LOVE" to me. Gay marriage is an oxymoron and a logical dichotomy. You are correct when you say I do not understand it. I do not understand pedophilia either, or a mother murdering her children, or abortion either. The fact that I do not understand it means that I have a firm moral standing and could never be so depraved as to commit those atrocities. This is not to say that LGBT commits these atrocities. Only it is a fair comparison to explain why I do not need to understand it to know that it is a moral violation. Could you image a thief before the Judge saying "Well you just don't understand!" People act like it is wrong because it is wrong. I love (PHILO) you enough to tell you the truth in an attempt to save you from the moral consequences that are set before you. I suspect that you will not listen. But I pray for you all the same.
I must advise you that God did not "make" you gay. God does not create something that He then continues in scripture to call an abomination. People are corrupted by the choices they make and the environment they are raised in. Next, feelings are not an authority on morality and can never be because everyone "feels" different on any given subject. Some people "feel" that abortion is good, while others do not. You cannot go before a criminal judge and say "I felt like robbing the bank". Your feelings do not give you a license for any action. I most conclude that your argument is completely irrational.
