Ben, Paul was referring to much more than one specific place and time. The context and the language is much broader than ancient Greece
(
"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness";
"For since the creation of the world..."). It's just unfortunate that so many people (on both sides) solely focus on the 'unnatural relations' part.

I'm not sure how anyone can read Romans 1:28-30 and think
a) it's not the same people (the wicked) being discussed from v18ff.
b) only prostitutes in ancient Greece were 'the wicked'.

In any event, to think Paul is only talking about male prostitution/idol worship is doing an injustice to the text (Let's read Genesis and Romans in the same spirit).

OK, you have me there, Kim - it would make sense in other idol-worshipping prostitution settings. The reason I picked on Greece was that those ancient temple rites were what Paul was referring to, and that I don't know of any other situations that have combined male prostitution with idol worship.

Mmm...and I must clarify lest I be accused of strict exclusivism. My point is that heresy that comes from error is unfortunate, presumably God looks after his own, and I can't say I'm always right. This is a case of deliberate rebellion, not of doctrinal dispute. It is not primarily a matter of arguing over doctrine, but arguing over whether the Church has authority over individual desires. If someone will not make any sacrifice to be a Catholic(or any kind of Christian) then they should refrain from being such.

Ben W., why doesn't Romans 1 make sense outside of ancient Greece? Seems to me we just change our idols from temple gods/goddesses to something else.

Hehe, I very much agree with your last line of your last post, jason.

There's a bit of miscommunication between gays and evangelicals. While most evangelicals emphasize chastity for gay people, there're also plenty of Christians who say that gays can be "cured" or that homosexual desires aren't "natural" - and thus is against God's law. So it's certainly relevant for homosexuals to argue about whether their desires are fixed. (I mean, just look at Romans 1, which attributes the 'unnatural desires' to idol worship. This doesn't even make sense outside of an ancient Greek temple prostitution setting).

Or to put it more bluntly, while a sinner does belong, a heretic does not until he ceases his heresy. And while there has been unfortunate disaggreement about what constitutes heresy, surely the belief that mere personal desire has a veto over the teachings of the Church is heresy.

One cannot have identity with a group for which one is unwilling to make sacrifices. At best one can only have xenophilia. Now it is true that Catholics think chastity to be a categorical imperative. But as it happens Amish think pacifism to be so as far as I can make out; that never bothered me. For the matter of that, Catholics think that it is necessary to be a Catholic to be a fully developed Christian and that doesn't bother me. What does bother me is that gays are trying to subvert the rights of private organizations to govern themselves, simply so that they can have their cake and eat it too.

I'm stunned to be reminded that the Church will permit a "Gay Priest". Why can't gays just be content to be gay? Why do they feel that they have to be "Gay Catholics" or "Gay Christians" or ... It may be overly simplistic but it would seem that if you want to be a Catholic, you would seek to comport yourself in a manner consistent with Catholic doctrine. Our society does not and can not tolerate a police officer who chooses to be a criminal "after hours". Their sworn duty to uphold the law dictates a set of expectations that governs their life style 24/7. And so does Catholic or Christian doctrine. If you choose to follow Jesus Christ, then follow him; don't ask for an exception because you can't control some biological urge. The Catholic Church in D.C. should be applauded for doing everything possible to continue God's work in that modern day Sodom without compromising itself.

I'd be fascinated to hear the take of these gay Catholics on pedophile priests on the one hand, and NAMBLA on the other. I suspect the criticism would be somewhat less strident in the second case.

Furthermore Ben, it is true that I don't think drinking coffee is wrong and Mormons do. But I have no intention of becoming a Mormon. And it is true that Amish don't watch war movies and I do. But I am not Amish. If I became Amish I would abstain from war-movies. Those that complain about "not belonging" in the Catholic Church are complaining about following the rules of the Church to which they claim to belong. If they will not ascede to the rules(no one can actually follow them) then they are not Catholic. I would complain about veneration and a pseudo-aristocratic clergy. But, behold! I am an evangelical not a Catholic and it is my privelege not to accept them. Furthermore you might notice that they are complaining not to their bishop but to the NPR which are outsiders. In other words they are not only unwilling to obey the rules of the Church, they are unwilling to keep the rules of internal loyalty. And yet they complain about "feeling like they don't belong"? There is a reason for that feeling don't you know.

But the chief contention of gays is that their desires are fixed. That they "are" gay, not that they are acting gay. If it was a straight out contention about what was right or wrong it would be a lot different.
As for Paul, he was assuming that marriage was in fact a way of controling one's desires.

Jason, having a gay interest group does *not* assume the impossibility of controlling desires, any more than a beer-making hobby group would. They simply disagree with you that homosexuality (or beer) is something that needs prohibition.

Of course, there is another school of thought - that one should get married only if he can't control his 'carnal desires' (and by extension, this would include gay marriage as well, if it's not prohibited). But I tend to disagree with Paul; I believe that marriage is part of God's plan.

I don't know Lee. You certainly can't have one Conservative Catholic flocking.

Seems to me that there are many extremely talented writers at PFM. Writers who are **extremely** sensitive to the choice of particular words used to convey a message. Therefore, y'all ought to be all over this last line of the article: "Of course, some conservative Episcopalians have flocked [...]".

How, pray tell, are "some" able to "flock"?

The article is filled with constructions like that, designed to sway the reader's opinion rather than deliver facts. NPR - your tax dollars at work.

Doesn't the idea of having "gay" as an interest group assume the impossibility of controling desires, and the idea of marriage assume an agreement to do so.