God And Homosexuality

[IndigoChild5559]

Still doesn't change the fact that biblical morality (including the ten commandments) is just man made, and that the biblical gods as described in Gen 1:25-26 & Deut 10:17 are just created in the images and likenesses of the biblical writers too.

We'll have to agree to disagree agreeably.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Nonsense. How did Lot's sons-in-law take advantage of him when Lot mocked them and tried to pimp their future wives and then sexually assaulted them after sneaking out of Zoar with a stack of grog?

And perhaps you can tell us how Lot's daughters managed to maintain their drunken old father's erection and inseminate themselves on two consecutive nights which magically coincided with both their ovulations and while he had brewer's droop. Did they use an electro-ejaculator and turkey basters to inseminate themselves, or did Lot just tell lies to cover up sexually assaulting them?

We aren't talking about Lot's sons, but his daughters.

My understanding is that a man can be totally smashed and still effectively have sex.

Women who share sleeping quarters usually share the same menstrual cycle.

 

[Mitty]

We aren't talking about Lot's sons, but his daughters.

So why did Lot mock his sons-in-law and try to pimp their future wives and sexually assault them after his sons-in-law wanted "to know" what the two men were up to in Lot's house?

My understanding is that a man can be totally smashed and still effectively have sex.

Women who share sleeping quarters usually share the same menstrual cycle.

Nonsense. Are you familiar with male sexuality and brewer's droop in drunken old men? I can assure you that he would not have been able to maintain an erection, let alone ejaculate if he was completely drunk?
And how did they determine that they were ovulating when they used an electro-ejaculator and turkey basters to inseminate themselves? Did they record their temperatures?
Or did Lot just tell lies about his immorality and how he sexually assaulted them throughout their menstrual cycles and consequently both became pregnant? And I'm sure that there would've been plenty of men in Zoar who would've been ready willing and able to help Lot's daughters lose their virginity anyway.

The imaginative story is probably based on a volcanic eruption such as Santorini about 1450 BC and the demise of the Minoan civilization, which is also the probable source for the story of Atlantis.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Or did Lot just tell lies about his immorality and how he sexually assaulted them throughout their menstrual cycles and why they both became pregnant?

Oh puhleeze. You have quite the imagination.

 

[Mitty]

Oh puhleeze. You have quite the imagination.

Not as much as those who wrote that story about how Lot mocked his sons-in-law and tried to pimp their future wives and sexually assaulted them after his sons-in-law wanted "to know" what the two strangers were up to in Lot's house after Lot met them down-town.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If you claim all swans are white, it takes only one black swan to falsify your view. If you claim sexual "imprinting"/abuse is what causes homosexuality, my life demonstrates that is simply not a fact. Even if you demonstrated there was a statistically significant trend between these things, that wouldn't allow you to conclude causation.

You have zero scientific, peer reviewed evidence for the conclusion that sexual "imprinting"/abuse of minors causes homosexuality. You've admitted this. So you believe it for other reasons. If you weren't obligated to believe gayness is bad by your religious beliefs, I'd venture to bet you wouldn't be clinging so tightly to this weak hypothesis.

I agree "All swans are white" is nullified by a black swan, however, you are a reticent swan who doesn't answer questions and I suspect your claims. I say that to you respectfully. To wit, your disregard/confusion regarding the below.

For example, I never said as you wrote above "imprinting/abuse". I said imprinting and parental distancing/separation. Studies of men showed that some of them, at the time that a child's eyesight is in develop and has difficulty finding object focus, felt distant from their sons when their child wasn't looking at them (we're talking about a months-old child)! Men, who have trouble finding family focus as it is, kept reporting their distance in their hearts from their sons, which showed up later in the sons' homosexuality--which is in large part a quest to discover "what is male identity"?

It's not a weak hypothesis, and I've been trying to find online what I read in print, about a secular psychologist who worked with 300 gay men and 298 of them (close to all swans) had issues with their same sex parent/imprinting.

 

[BilliardsBall]

But as you well know the bible says nothing at all about sex between women or female homosexuality.

I've never said that--this is your assertion, since you take this statement, for example, as saying "nothing about lesbians":

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

You suggest this is about anal sex ONLY, here in yet another version we have shameless ACTS, plural. It cannot be anal sex.

 

[Left Coast]

I agree "All swans are white" is nullified by a black swan, however, you are a reticent swan who doesn't answer questions and I suspect your claims. I say that to you respectfully.

And I say to you respectfully that that is incredibly insulting, after I've spent far longer than most gay people would bother, answering your cross-examination questions about my life, all to prove some long debunked homophobic idea that homosexuality is some sort of psychic wound to be healed.

For example, I never said as you wrote above "imprinting/abuse". I said imprinting and parental distancing/separation.

False. You said, and I quote:

"Since learning the facts about imprinting and abuse, I've had the chance to discuss homosexuality with both born agains and people I witness to. Every person I've encountered had either or both same-sex abuse/recruitment/early imprinting"

Please don't claim you didn't say what you literally said verbatim.

Studies of men showed that some of them, at the time that a child's eyesight is in develop and has difficulty finding object focus, felt distant from their sons when their child wasn't looking at them (we're talking about a months-old child)!

Fascinating, but irrelevant to homosexuality. Or are you saying this was a long-term longitudinal study and these one month old baby boys who didnt look at their dads later turned out gay?

Men, who have trouble finding family focus as it is, kept reporting their distance in their hearts from their sons, which showed up later in the sons' homosexuality--which is in large part a quest to discover "what is male identity"?

We've covered this. LGBTQ kids are often gender nonconforming, and thus it makes sense that, because of their gayness, their same sex straight/cis parent would have difficulty relating to them in the same way they would relate to a cis/straight kid of thr same sex. So this doesn't demonstrate that any such relationship strain caused the gayness.

It's not a weak hypothesis, and I've been trying to find online what I read in print, about a secular psychologist who worked with 300 gay men and 298 of them (close to all swans) had issues with their same sex parent/imprinting.

It is a weak hypothesis, which is why no modern reputable medical or psychological organization endorses your view. It's defunct psychoanalytic pseudoscience.

 

[Mitty]

I've never said that--this is your assertion, since you take this statement, for example, as saying "nothing about lesbians":

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

You suggest this is about anal sex ONLY, here in yet another version we have shameless ACTS, plural. It cannot be anal sex.

In other words Romans 1:26-27 says the women were obviously having anal sex, since likewise their men were also obviously having anal sex with other men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error, given that it doesn't say anything about women with women nor whether or not they lived on the Island of Lesbos.

And unless you can show us where the bible says anything about women lying with womankind as with mankind (Leviticus 18 & 20) and/or that anal sex is "the natural use of the woman" (Romans 1:26-27), then alas you are just grasping at imaginary straws.

You suggest this is about anal sex ONLY, here in yet another version we have shameless ACTS, plural. It cannot be anal sex.

That's because the word "men" is plural and not singular.
Or do you think that the writers should change that verse to "men committing shameless act with other men"?
Or do you think that the writers should change the verse to "men committing shameless act with another man"?
Or perhaps the writers should change the verse to "a man committing shameless act with other men"?
Or perhaps "a man committing shameless act with another man"?

But either way, the act/acts was/were obviously penetrative sex and why the men and women were receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Or perhaps you can describe how women have penetrative sex with other women by working that which is unseemly and vile.

 

[Mitty]

And I say to you respectfully that that is incredibly insulting, after I've spent far longer than most gay people would bother, answering your cross-examination questions about my life, all to prove some long debunked homophobic idea that homosexuality is some sort of psychic wound to be healed.

Alas it seems that it would be easier to convince a brick wall.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Imprint = "Make a deep impression upon, a lasting impression."

Sexual imprinting = One's early/first sexual experiences make a lasting impression and are at the root of numerous fantasies, fetishes and preferences

Soul = Something for which there is much evidence/demonstrated to exist

Science = Provides opportunity for rigorous testing, but only of non-metaphysical, tangible things; almost useless when testing (or measuring or comprehending) love, justice, souls, psychology/conscience, free will, faith, trust, etc.

As I pointed out to you the last time you brought up sexual imprinting, what it's actually about is parent-child relationships and how we choose mates with traits that are similar to our mothers, fathers or other parental figures we had growing up. In other words, sexual imprinting is, "a process whereby individuals express preference for mates with traits similar to their mothers, to their fathers, or to other adult members in their populations."
https://www.nature.com/articles/6885270#:~:text=Sexual%20imprinting%20is%%20process,a%20parent%20as%20the%20model.
How mate choice is influenced by 'sexual imprinting' revealed by high school students

You say there is evidence for something called a soul. What is that evidence?

I guess you aren't aware that we can read/measure most human emotions in brain scans. Love is one of them. Also, love can be demonstrated, as it is when your mother takes care of you when you're ill or your partner brings home flowers or tells you they love you.

Science can test for anything that is measurable or observable in any way. If you say there is a soul, there must be some way of determining whether this is true or not. You're asserting a thing, so how do we figure out if you are correct in your assertion? If you have no evidence for a thing, I have no idea how you can assert that it exists.

Justice is a concept that we invented. Free will is a concept that we theorize about. Faith is a concept. Trust is a word we defined and created.( As with love, trust can be demonstrated by certain behaviours.) We know they exist, because we created them. We continue to discuss what they mean to us to this day.

Were you planning on replying to the rest of my post that actually contained the point I was making?

 

[BilliardsBall]

And I say to you respectfully that that is incredibly insulting, after I've spent far longer than most gay people would bother, answering your cross-examination questions about my life, all to prove some long debunked homophobic idea that homosexuality is some sort of psychic wound to be healed.



False. You said, and I quote:

"Since learning the facts about imprinting and abuse, I've had the chance to discuss homosexuality with both born agains and people I witness to. Every person I've encountered had either or both same-sex abuse/recruitment/early imprinting"

Please don't claim you didn't say what you literally said verbatim.



Fascinating, but irrelevant to homosexuality. Or are you saying this was a long-term longitudinal study and these one month old baby boys who didnt look at their dads later turned out gay?



We've covered this. LGBTQ kids are often gender nonconforming, and thus it makes sense that, because of their gayness, their same sex straight/cis parent would have difficulty relating to them in the same way they would relate to a cis/straight kid of thr same sex. So this doesn't demonstrate that any such relationship strain caused the gayness.



It is a weak hypothesis, which is why no modern reputable medical or psychological organization endorses your view. It's defunct psychoanalytic pseudoscience.

"same-sex abuse/recruitment/early imprinting" means either/or.

Yes, I'll need to look again for the documentation I found where fathers of gays spoke about this very early/primal detachment from their sons.

Put differently, I hugged/touched my son often and still do. Born agains know that physical/spiritual/emotional closeness is a help here. I almost said "innoculation against homosexuality" but we both know you are fighting to say this is normal and I find it present where there is imprinting/trauma/lack of male closeness.

Now, it is interesting to me that we are separating orientation from gender. I still find dominant and passive partners, more butch or femme in outlook/lifestyle among gay partners.

"It is a weak hypothesis, which is why no modern reputable medical or psychological organization endorses your view. It's defunct psychoairnalytic pseudoscience."

What does that make Freudian analysis? "Reputable medical associations" as you wrote say my problems and yours are linked to primal desires to kill father to sleep with mother (or vice versa if you're gay? is their peer research here?).

My problems aren't my Bible mindset, yours aren't brokenness and willfulness, but rather, based on how much poop we held or expelled as toddlers. Freudian friends think Behaviorism is pseudoscience and vice versa. Who's right?

G_d IMHO!

 

[BilliardsBall]

In other words Romans 1:26-27 says the women were obviously having anal sex, since likewise their men were also obviously having anal sex with other men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error, given that it doesn't say anything about women with women nor whether or not they lived on the Island of Lesbos.

And unless you can show us where the bible says anything about women lying with womankind as with mankind (Leviticus 18 & 20) and/or that anal sex is "the natural use of the woman" (Romans 1:26-27), then alas you are just grasping at imaginary straws.

That's because the word "men" is plural and not singular.
Or do you think that the writers should change that verse to "men committing shameless act with other men"?
Or do you think that the writers should change the verse to "men committing shameless act with another man"?
Or perhaps the writers should change the verse to "a man committing shameless act with other men"?
Or perhaps "a man committing shameless act with another man"?

But either way, the act/acts was/were obviously penetrative sex and why the men and women were receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Or perhaps you can describe how women have penetrative sex with other women by working that which is unseemly and vile.

Why assume the penalty was penetration in the anus? Don't some find that highly pleasurable and no penalty to speak of? Could it be semen from oral or anal sex instead? Think out of the box here. You seem to have a one track mind, pun not intended!

Sex isn't dirty. God made it, and commanded me to have it, especially when the Mrs. asks for it. And I love to obey God's commands!

My wife and I "don't get nasty, vile, unseemly". We make love.

Make love, not war!

LOVE! God is LOVE!

 

[BilliardsBall]

As I pointed out to you the last time you brought up sexual imprinting, what it's actually about is parent-child relationships and how we choose mates with traits that are similar to our mothers, fathers or other parental figures we had growing up. In other words, sexual imprinting is, "a process whereby individuals express preference for mates with traits similar to their mothers, to their fathers, or to other adult members in their populations."
https://www.nature.com/articles/6885270#:~:text=Sexual%20imprinting%20is%%20process,a%20parent%20as%20the%20model.
How mate choice is influenced by 'sexual imprinting' revealed by high school students

You say there is evidence for something called a soul. What is that evidence?

I guess you aren't aware that we can read/measure most human emotions in brain scans. Love is one of them. Also, love can be demonstrated, as it is when your mother takes care of you when you're ill or your partner brings home flowers or tells you they love you.

Science can test for anything that is measurable or observable in any way. If you say there is a soul, there must be some way of determining whether this is true or not. You're asserting a thing, so how do we figure out if you are correct in your assertion? If you have no evidence for a thing, I have no idea how you can assert that it exists.

Justice is a concept that we invented. Free will is a concept that we theorize about. Faith is a concept. Trust is a word we defined and created.( As with love, trust can be demonstrated by certain behaviours.) We know they exist, because we created them. We continue to discuss what they mean to us to this day.

Were you planning on replying to the rest of my post that actually contained the point I was making?

Interesting, so gays don't receive the right imprinting from mother/father? Any science on that?

And you deny sexual imprinting ALSO has to do with fetishes, fantasies and preferences?
cti
You continue to discuss what "faith and justice are" to this day. Did you know there's a book with the details.

I don't plan to address the rest of your prior post. I merely wanted to point out your misuse of words, not that I want to argue semantics with you. But we should define terms:

Science handles tangible, materials things. It is the WORST possible tool to handle intangible, metaphysical things on its face (scientism) although we can use the scientific method to test tithing, prayer, etc.

I'd be happy, of course, to answer other questions from you, but this troubles me:

Justice is a concept that we invented. Free will is a concept that we theorize about. Faith is a concept. Trust is a word we defined and created.( As with love, trust can be demonstrated by certain behaviours.) We know they exist, because we created them. We continue to discuss what they mean to us to this day.

Shall I tell black friends "justice doesn't exist, not really, it's a contrivance"?

Shall I tell my spouse "don't trust me, like love, it's subjective and we define and create trust as we go"?

 

[Left Coast]

"same-sex abuse/recruitment/early imprinting" means either/or.

Right, so what I said you said was accurate.

Yes, I'll need to look again for the documentation I found where fathers of gays spoke about this very early/primal detachment from their sons.

Put differently, I hugged/touched my son often and still do. Born agains know that physical/spiritual/emotional closeness is a help here. I almost said "innoculation against homosexuality" but we both know you are fighting to say this is normal and I find it present where there is imprinting/trauma/lack of male closeness.

Again, there is zero peer-reviewed evidence that hugging your sons prevents them from turning gay. A wide variety of social conservatives think that's the issue, not just born agains. It was a basic frame of mind behind the entire "ex-gay" movement, which has now basically collapsed because it has been exposed as such a baseless scam, even from people who were leaders in the movement.

Also, why are we ignoring gay women here?

Now, it is interesting to me that we are separating orientation from gender. I still find dominant and passive partners, more butch or femme in outlook/lifestyle among gay partners.

We've covered this. This trend is changing as gender roles become more egalitarian. Nor is it relevant to what causes homosexuality or whether homosexuality is moral.

"It is a weak hypothesis, which is why no modern reputable medical or psychological organization endorses your view. It's defunct psychoairnalytic pseudoscience."

What does that make Freudian analysis? "Reputable medical associations" as you wrote say my problems and yours are linked to primal desires to kill father to sleep with mother (or vice versa if you're gay? is their peer research here?).

Psychoanalysis is largely pseudoscientific IMO. Most modern-day mental health professionals and orgs reject Freud's psychosexual hypotheses. The fact that you don't seem to know that indicates your lack of awareness of evidence-based psychology and mental health interventions.

There is a substantial body of scientific research demonstrating the efficacy of a cognitive-behavioral approach. Therapeutic attempts to make gay people straight, born out of a view that homosexuality is a pathology to be treated, have repeatedly been failures.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

It doesn't matter what it means to you. It matters what medical science says it is.

This thread is about GOD and Homosexuality - so I will share what I believe God's position is on this issue.

In other words - what it means to me is crucial to my argument.

Unless you can prove that my beliefs about God's position on this matter is false - your guess is as good as mine.

This is where a lot of the problem comes in: too many people who believe they're "authorities" because they "read the bible" or "believe in Jesus."

This "argument" can be spun the other way around:

"This is where a lot of problem comes in: too many people who believe they're "authorities" because they "have scientific theories" or "believe there is no such thing as sin".

BTW - I never claimed to be an authority.

Everything I have shared has been my personal belief and I'm pretty sure I made that clear.

There must be agreement as to what terms mean, and as to what social standards are. And that's not up to you.

So it's up to you then? Or rather - up to those you consider to be the "proper" authorities?

It couldn't possibly be up to who I may consider to be a proper authority - right? Only you?

For someone who just tried to call me down for being a self-appointed "authority" - you're acting awfully authoritarian.

God doesn't define marriage. Ever. The biblical writers define marriage. There's a difference. One is immutable. One isn't. We have to be very careful about what we term "immutable" or "God's will," when dealing with a diverse society and when we cannot know for sure just what "God's will" is. The biblical writers wrote from their own knowledge base and cultural perspective. Neither is shared by us. Therefore, probably not the best thing to declare that what you "believe" is immutable. Immutability in that context invariably ends up excluding some. That's not what God had in mind.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

Yet it is an opinion bereft of the possibility of revelation - or in other words - God talking directly to Man.

Many of these "biblical writers" were men who I consider to be prophets who claimed to receive revelation from God.

Your argument also has the potential to declare that all scripture - or even any type of eye-witness account - should never be believed.

Since each "biblical writer" or eye-witness would be influenced by their "knowledge base" and "cultural perspective" - they are never reliable?

I also love how you claim that the "biblical writers" are unable to declare God's will - yet you are fully capable of doing so.

You just declared that, "God doesn't define marriage. Ever." and "That's not what God had in mind."

So - by your own admission - you are capable of interpreting God's will accurately while "biblical writers" and those who believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman cannot.

Those who disagree with you are not gifted like you are!

Also - considering that God has claimed to have a Kingdom which only those who do as He has commanded could enter - can you explain - based on your vast knowledge and heavenly gifts - why God would never "exclude" someone from certain blessings - such as marriage?

Paul clearly condemns some same-sex acts. We don't know specifically what acts they are, or in what context. Nor is it clear that those acts arise out of a homosexual orientation. Not all same-sex acts are homosexual acts. Are the acts loving? Committed? Consensual? Equitable? A method of expressing love and commitment to another human being?

It is true that Paul does not mention which actions he is condemning - but he did not mention only actions.

He also mentioned how these people were infected with "vile affections" and that they "burned in their lust one toward another".

How these people changed their "natural use" for one another is unclear - but that does not matter in light of his condemnation of their "vile affection" and "lust one toward another".

The scriptures stand as a testament that marriage should only be between men and women and that sexual relations should only be between a husband and wife.

I believe that any sexual relationship outside of marriage - no matter how loving, committed, consensual or equitable - is sinful and should be avoided.

If so, many would define that as "marriage," and marriage is aces in God's book -- doesn't matter if the acts are heterosexual in nature or homosexual in nature.

Again - you hypocritically act as an authority - after you erroneously tried to call me down for it - and you believe that you are uniquely qualified to interpret God's will.

It's too bad that you are too affected by your "knowledge base" and "cultural perspective" to be an accurate authority on these things.

BTW: I'd be careful about slinging too many rocks at the homosexual marriage thing, since your tradition historically practiced polygamy -- even though it was illegal in this country. And before you defend that practice by saying "times change and God issues new revelations from time to time," consider that God has issued a new revelation to many Christian authorities with regard to same-sex marriage, as well. And that's legal in this country.

Polygamous marriages were not illegal in the United States at the time when the Church first started the practice.

The Church later fled the Untied States when it was declared to be illegal.

Once God discontinued the practice of polygamy in the Church - the Utah territory joined the United States - and any who continued to practice polygamy afterward were excommunicated.

It is my opinion that any "Christian authority" who regards same-sex marriage as a practice approved by God is void of the Holy Spirit and ignorant of not only the testimony contained in the scriptures but of our purposes of being in this world and our eternal progression.

In closing I want to share why I so vehemently oppose defining "homosexual" as a person who is attracted to the same sex.

So many times I have heard ignorant people claim that God hates homosexuals because He commanded that they be killed in the old Mosaic Law.

That is not true.

God never commanded that those who have a sexual attraction to the same sex should be put to death.

He did - however - command in the old Mosaic Law that those who acted on such an attraction should be put to death.

God separated the attraction from the action and claimed that the action was what was sinful and warranted punishment.

This is true about all sin.

Having a murderous desire does not make someone a murderer - so they are not guilty of the sin of murder.

Labeling someone a homosexual for being attracted to the same sex would be similar to labeling someone a murderer for having a desire to kill their boss.

Claiming that a person should be labelled anything simply based on their desire or attraction is flawed in my opinion.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The issue is people turn to homosexuality from lust or brokenness (Romans 1) and God wants us to be wholistic and whole.

No, they don't. Not anymore than straight people.

Jesus heals and IMHO you should let Him heal your mindset that everything is clean and decent in bed. It sure is--for married straight couples, who've made vows to one another and often, God.

You don't know what my mindset is, so don't assume.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

And will you be tolerant of them and accept their decision if they don't want to talk with your local bishop

Did I claim that I would force anyone to do anything?

The first step to repenting of your sins is to admit that you have sinned.

You wouldn't ask for your bishop's help to overcome a sin if you did not believe you had committed sin.

If you are done with your sanctimonious questions - I have a question for you.

Why would you assume that because I disagree with you about homosexuality that I must be a bigot who would grow to hate my own children if they did something I disapproved of?

and given that the bible says absolutely nothing about female homosexuality anyway

Romans 1 does and I have shared that with you many times.

and that a biblical marriage is simply a personal agreement between two people to shack up together and doesn't require a legally signed marriage contract or witnesses or a wedding celebrant?

You have yet to share any supporting evidences for these claims.

 

[Mitty]

God never commanded that those who have a sexual attraction to the same sex should be put to death.

He did - however - command in the old Mosaic Law that those who acted on such an attraction should be put to death.

So why didn't the "god" say anything about female homosexuality, given that other aspects of female sexuality are specifically dealt with in Leviticus 18 & 20, including bestiality and adultery by all remarried divorcees (Leviticus 20:10), and that even disobedient children are also commanded to be put to death?

 

[Mitty]

Romans 1 does and I have shared that with you many times.

You have yet to share any supporting evidences for these claims.
Have you ever actually read Romans 1?
If so, where does it say anything about female homosexuality or women with women "working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet" from penetrative sex with other women as "likewise also the men"?
And where does the bible say that anal sex is "the natural use of the woman" and that female genitalia are "vile" & "unseemly"?
Or did you just make that up?

You have yet to share any supporting evidences for these claims.

So where does the bible say that a biblical marriage requires a legally signed marriage contract and/or a wedding celebrant and/or witnesses? Or is that just wishful thinking?