Jesus, the Vatican, and gay marriage rights

[Robyn_p]

But know this my friend, the Church, just like Jesus, tells us these things out of love. Not hate. If I had a daughter who liked to eat sand, I would tell her to stop. It’s bad for her, she’s not made for that, and it’s misusing what eating is meant for. If she was too young to understand, I would make a rule against it. Even if she had some sort of tendency to want to eat sand, I still wouldn’t let her. Not out of cruelty or hate but love!!! I love her too much to lie to her!!! If I just pretended everything was hunky dory when it wasn’t, that would make me a horrible parent. She might not understand, and might even scream, “Why do you hate me!?!” but that doesn’t change the truth about my love.
And that, in a nutshell, is the Church’s position on all sins, including homosexuality. The truth, and only the truth, can set us free and give us true happiness. I know from experience. I’ve never felt happier than when I finally realized what I’m made for.

P.S. We can’t be rude or cruel to people, you’re right. I’m in no way suggesting that. The catechism specifically condemns that also FYI.

 

[vsedriver]

This is a great week to ask… although you and I can imagine Benedict, and maybe Francis, saying that civil marriage rights should not be extended to gays, can you imagine Jesus preaching on the streets of Jerusalem that gays have to suffer and not have equal civil rights?

yes, I can see this. He would say go and sin no more. Take up your cross and follow me. He would not say, sex is for anyone who has feelings for each other.

Besides, gays already have equal civil rights to marry. Always have. No where on the marriage license does it ask who is or is not gay. Any man can be married to any woman who is of legal age, not already married, and not closely related. And there are many gay people who married people of the opposite sex.

 

[vsedriver]

Equality? Human rights? Love for neighbor? How does denying civil rights fit in with the definition of love in 1 Corinthians 13?

Your slippery slope argument is weak because there is a compelling secular interest in protecting children. In fact, denying civil rights to gays hurts the welfare of the children that are raised by gays, as it becomes a more uphill battle to recognize their parental and custody rights.

Children have a God given and Natural right to be parented by a mother and a father. This experience requires two people of the opposite sex.

So gays should not be raising children in the first place. They are denying the child a basic human right. If one of the gays is a biological parent his rights are automatically secured.

To deliberately deprive a child of a parent of the opposite sex for your own desires to experience parenthood is child abuse. That goes for straight women who have kids without dads too.

If a gay person wants a family he should marry and raise a family like nature intended.

and I do hope that all of you who feel that gays are being denied their civil rights will support those who want multiple marriage partners and those who want to marry family members. After all it is not fair to deny me the privileges and benefits of marriage because I want to marry my mom. I could use the tax dependend deduction and she could save a fortune on medical insurance.

 

[blaskoman]

Calilobo: if u feel that the Church is out of touch with modernity, your " Christian seeking" will never get off the ground. the church has preached the truth for two millineum. Maybe just maybe, secular society is out of touch with the natural law and truth!

 

[Michael_Allen]

This is a great week to ask… although you and I can imagine Benedict, and maybe Francis, saying that civil marriage rights should not be extended to gays, can you imagine Jesus preaching on the streets of Jerusalem that gays have to suffer and not have equal civil rights?

When I read scripture I don’t read of a Jesus involved in deciding about civil laws one way or another. Rather he called people simply to follow him - which what I am sure he would say to both the gay people in your example, and to us. In the past the Church has often lost its way when it has sought, and gained, political power. Sadly power often leads to the desire to suppress others. But we are not called to political power; we are called to be that light atop the hill.

Anyway, that’s just the way I see it. Appreciating that others have different opinions and views.

 

[markomalley]

This is a great week to ask… although you and I can imagine Benedict, and maybe Francis, saying that civil marriage rights should not be extended to gays, can you imagine Jesus preaching on the streets of Jerusalem that gays have to suffer and not have equal civil rights?

Jesus never advocated violating the Mosaic law.

[bibledrb]Lev 18:22[/bibledrb]

[bibledrb]Lev 20:13[/bibledrb]

So I cannot imagine Jesus endorsing homosexuality. Having said that, I can imagine Jesus advocating repentance and forgiveness for homosexuals who wanted to change their ways:

[bibledrb]John 8:2-11[/bibledrb]

(Note carefully that he did not say go and continue in your sin. He said go and sin no more…there is a BIG difference)

 

[Brendan]

Therefore, if the Church wants to change people’s behavior so badly, shouldn’t it preach the Gospel (which Jesus did do) instead of attempting to legislate morality (which Jesus did not do)?

Huh? Jesus was the one who gave the Book of Leviticus to the Jews. How is that not ‘legislating morality’?

 

[georget]

This is a great week to ask… although you and I can imagine Benedict, and maybe Francis, saying that civil marriage rights should not be extended to gays, can you imagine Jesus preaching on the streets of Jerusalem that gays have to suffer and not have equal civil rights?

Yes, if the sinner repented, I believe would have forgiven him, or her, then said “now go and sin no more”.

 

[Michael_Allen]

Huh? Jesus was the one who gave the Book of Leviticus to the Jews. How is that not ‘legislating morality’?

Something to note though is within what you said - the law was given to the Jews. The Jews were called to live by the law to be a light unto other nations…

“I the LORD have called unto you in righteousness, and have taken hold of your hand, and submitted you as the people’s covenant, as a light unto the nations” (Isaiah, 42:6)

The way Israel, and now Christianity, was/is to shape the world is to be a light - a covenant people leading by example, as our Lord did. This is something that the Franciscans “get” very well I think - that a core part of our Lord’s life and Passion was/is to lead us in His way. Jesus, in the example of His life, did not impose His will on others, but called on them to follow Him.

 

[OriginalJS]

It is inconceivable, according to all reputed scripture scholars of all faiths, that Jesus the Jew would have (1) approved of homosexual behavior and (2) considered such a “marriage” to be any kind of a “right,” or that if his earthly ministry were occurring in the 21st century instead of the 1st, he would have had radically different views than the religious tradition which He honored and repeatedly affirmed without ambiguity.

With regard to the implication that supposedly Jesus had nothing to say on the subject: Of course he didn’t. The Gospels were News, as in something different. It was kerygma. What was continued by Jesus (Torah, which included prohibitions against homosexuality) was not News. What was News (worthy of being recorded, worthy of both oral and written tradition) was what was unusual and unique about the message, not what was stable and unchanged. In fact, had Jesus approved of homosexuality, it would not for one moment have been overlooked. That would have been considered so radical that (a) it would have banner headlines all over every gospel, and (b) most likely Jesus would have been thoroughly rejected even by his original staunch followers. Thus, there would have been no Jesus history to continue, no lasting kerygma, and no Christian message which proceeded directly from the Jewish message.

The written word was the recording of the oral tradition, handed down by being repeated. Any radical new sexuality code would not have been an oversight in terms of the recording of that.

It is thoroughly ahistorical to imagine that Jesus approved of homosexuality (and yet that revolutionary statement never made it into the NT, even though the radical-enough discussion of Gentile circumcision did). It conflicts with the history, anthropology, and culture of the time. Anyone who manipulates the text to arrive at that “conclusion” is being disingenuous, or eisegetical for personal or political reasons. (Or, it is a matter of ignorance of the tools of analysis.) It would be one of those three possibilities. There are rogue “scholars” who have manipulated both Hebrew and Christian scriptures, cobbling together an unconvincingly and awkward patchwork of rationalization for “approved” or merely unaddressed homosexual behavior, but no true Christian or Jewish academic takes such polemics seriously.

One of the ways Jesus’ and his followers distinguished themselves from the practices of pagans, and from the excesses of Roman and Greek culture, was in fact to forbid homosexual behavior.

Any other understanding is an invented and distorted version of Jesus, fabricated by those with a political agenda and not with an understanding of the process of analyzing texts of the ancient Mediterranean.

Hmmm. Would not Jesus have been rejected if he had advocated the abolition of slavery?

 

[Elizabeth502]

That’s the thing. Jesus, in Scripture, only mentions what choices to make in one’s personal life…

Your argument falls apart the minute any student of even an elementary history class tells you that the Roman Empire was a totalitarian form of government whereas the USA is a representative democracy – the latter not only allowing its citizens to contribute to the making of laws, but depending on citizen participation for its very existence.

You are fluent with anachronisms, including the notion that Jesus’ remark about rendering to Caesar referred to the making of laws by a citizen democracy. Had the Jews “suggested” to the Romans that maybe homosexual marriage was a good idea for the State two things would have happened:

(a) The Romans would have laughed uproariously at the concept, since their view of marriage was for the stability of society, was exclusively heterosexual, and was one of the marks of status for a Roman. Marriage was absolutely for the raising of new Roman citizens and teaching them how to be a good Roman. The wife attended to the behavior of the children and also assisted in their formation and education. The optional homosexual activity of Roman men was also part of “becoming a Roman” and had zero to do with marriage. They would have found the concept hilarious.

(b) Such suggestions would have been considered, like most every suggestion, insurrection. Imprisonment and/or something more violent would have awaited such words of disobedience.

The Jews had no choice but to separate themselves, in their behavior, from Rome, and separate they did.

The Jewish world-view was very much that God, not the State, bestowed all of humanity (not just Jews) with rights. God was/is the author of the Moral Law, not the State. So Jesus would never have considered it a natural right or a universal right or a “civil right” to engage in genital activity with someone of the same sex, even if the two people were not Jewish. Rights are embedded in Justice, and God is the author of Justice, as Jesus in His humanity understood and in His divinity displayed and embodied that. Justice for a Jew was not a concept separated from morality, but intertwined with it. They recognized that the “justice” of the State was in fact injustice — hmmm, kind of like the abortion laws now embedded artificially in American “justice.”

 

[edwest2]

And how is denying civil rights compassionate?

This is not a civil rights issue.

jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_gay_marriage.php3

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

What’s so great about insisting on homosexual “marriage”? That shouldn’t be a right. It would mean the end of all morality in this country. If it were allowed, the next group in line would also be yelling for rights. Would pedophiles be next? Would it mean that they would be allowed to “love” children the way they do?

Of course, this is just my individual thought here. But I don’t see where going against God’s law should be a right. If you want that right, then move somewhere where it’s allowed.

Yes, pedophiles… I mean “minor attracted persons” would be next.

americansfortruth.com/2011/08/25/firsthand-report-on-b4u-act-conference-for-minor-attracted-persons-aims-at-normalizing-pedophilia/

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Equality? Human rights? Love for neighbor? How does denying civil rights fit in with the definition of love in 1 Corinthians 13?

Your slippery slope argument is weak because there is a compelling secular interest in protecting children. In fact, denying civil rights to gays hurts the welfare of the children that are raised by gays, as it becomes a more uphill battle to recognize their parental and custody rights.

Here’s a good explanation:

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0014.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[CopticChristian]

This is a great week to ask… although you and I can imagine Benedict, and maybe Francis, saying that civil marriage rights should not be extended to gays, can you imagine Jesus preaching on the streets of Jerusalem that gays have to suffer and not have equal civil rights?

Cali,

I can imagine Jesus saying…“repent for the kingdom of God is at hand”…I can imagine Jesus saying “do not be conformed to the world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind”…I can imagine Jesus saying…“he who loves his life will lose it and he who hates his life will save it”…and since the Bible is the word of God, Jesus is God, and the letter to Romans says this…

24Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

and as he tells the Scribes and Pharisees “woe to you”…I can imagine he would say

Woe to you that practice abominable deeds
Woe to you that act against the laws of nature and ask others to join you
Woe to you that deny and want to change what it, for in the beginning it was not so, Male and Female He created them…

I can imagine this…

 

[CopticChristian]

And how is denying civil rights compassionate?

Lobo,

Promoting someone to continue a sinful life is not compassionate…to suggest that we should…

Set up brothels because Prostitutes need the right to work…is not compassionate
Establish safe houses for sale of drugs because people want them…is not compassionate
Allow Pornographers to use children because their is an audience for this material is not compassionate…

Promoting anything against the natural order is not compassionate…it is more compassionate to oppose it…

 

[CopticChristian]

Equality? Human rights? Love for neighbor? How does denying civil rights fit in with the definition of love in 1 Corinthians 13?

Your slippery slope argument is weak because there is a compelling secular interest in protecting children. In fact, denying civil rights to gays hurts the welfare of the children that are raised by gays, as it becomes a more uphill battle to recognize their parental and custody rights.

Lobo,

You must have agreement on what it is you believe 1Cor13 means…tell me what you think it means.

 

[CopticChristian]

That’s the thing. Jesus, in Scripture, only mentions what choices to make in one’s personal life, but nothing politically, legally, or socially. The only thing Scripture says about what to do politically is related to taxes: “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s”.

Therefore, if the Church wants to change people’s behavior so badly, shouldn’t it preach the Gospel (which Jesus did do) instead of attempting to legislate morality (which Jesus did not do)?

Lobo,

Outline for mutual understanding the gospel that you believe should be preached.

 

[CopticChristian]

We have no rights with God… for Christians, Jesus died for us so we owe him everything. Christianity is about surrendering oneself, including one’s rights, to God. We are to live in accordance to His will, not our will, so therefore our rights are irrelevant, since it may be God’s plan that we die tomorrow.

So Christianity is the wrong place to look to define human rights. The UN would be a good start instead.

Why doesn’t civil authority have authority to do what is in conflict with the laws of God? Civil authority is secular (for good reason).

Lobo,

How is it you can contrast this with…

Go and make disciples of all nations…how is it you expect to do this?

 

[Michael_Allen]

Yes, pedophiles… I mean “minor attracted persons” would be next.

I think few people would agree with that - that is not a relationship where mature consent can be given - it’s clearly an abuse of trust.

If the argument against gay marriage hangs on drawing a parallel with pedophilia then I think there can’t be a very strong argument, as it’s clearly a forced association. A better parallel, I believe, would be whether marriage could, as in Old Testament times, involve more than two partners, all of whom consent and all of whom have the maturity to give trustworthy consent.