Jesus, the Vatican, and gay marriage rights

[fix]

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. Why would our Lord Affirm sin?

 

[fix]

And how is denying civil rights compassionate?

There is no right to evil.

 

[ALLGIRLS]

Is marriage even a “civil right” at all? There are certain qualifications that anyone desiring to marry have to meet. Both parties have to be a certain minimum age, they can’t be closely related, they can’t be already married to other people. I think there are even some citizenship or visa/immigration requirements. Where does this idea that everyone has an unfettered “right” to marriage come from? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are rights, and they can all be denied for certain reasons, too.

In Christ,
Ellen

 

[fix]

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?

Can anyone authentically claim fidelity to Jesus while rejecting His teachings and those He invested with authority? It seems beyond belief we Catholics would ever claim we may be faithful while rejecting His authority. Just looking at Scripture, Tradition, and thousands of years of history it seems impossible for anyone to claim that our Lord would affirm sin in anyway. He said, among other things, he who hears you hears Me and he who rejects you rejects Me. Tough case to make our Lord would ever support sin.

 

[MarkInOregon]

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?

I can imagine Jesus calling us all to repentance, to take up our cross, to follow him and to do the will of his Father. I didn’t see Jesus preventing the suffering of Christians in the early Church. I didn’t see his disciples telling the early Christians–hey jetison those beliefts so you won’t be persecuted and can avoid suffering. Gay people are being called to live a chaste life - as are we all. I don’t see anyone here advocating that gay people be denied jobs, housing, food, clothing, etc.–I thnk everyone acknowledges that all humans are entitled to that. They have been asked not to redefine what marriage is.

Where does this idea that Jesus was just a good guy accepting and affirming everyone come from? Does it come from anyone who has actually read the Gospel? Jesus ministry is a continual call to the sick and the down trodden, the lost and the sinner–it is a call to repentance, to doing the will of his Father, to taking up our cross.

Jesus called us to repent. He forgave the sins of those who asked. He had harsh words for towns who ignored his call. I think he would call for them to repent and follow him doing the will of his Father–just as he calls you and I to do the same.

Peace,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

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.

Yes but they lived under a different political system–one where they had no (name removed by moderator)ut. Today we live in a society that grants us (name removed by moderator)ut into the kind of society we will live under. Are you suggesting that we can follow Christ without voting? Without voting in accordance with what we believe is best for society? Are we truly living our faith if we don’t vote at all or don’t vote in accordance with it? It was these early Christians living their faith and going joyfully to their martyrdom that transformed society. We gained a say in our society–and now it is as if we are not supposed to use it. If we truly lived our faith–our society wouldn’t not be devolving as it is today. I am afraid because so many Christians have jetisoned much of their faith and fail to live it–that we will shortly find ourselves in the very position of those first Christians.

Peace,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

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.

Currently few agree–thank the Lord. Yet the waters are being tested. I have seem some argue that it is only lack of acceptance of these relationships as normal–that causes a problem. There was a guy who actually argued it was healthy for the children–he was trying to start a charity to educate the public–luckily he was turned down. Are you so confident that the forces who want to normalize everythning can be stopped? Have you looked at the costumes some young girls wear on Halloween? I don’t think this was offered as an arguement against gay marriage but rather as a prediction of where this society eventually ends up.

Peace,
Mark

 

[ALLGIRLS]

Currently few agree–thank the Lord. Yet the waters are being tested. I have seem some argue that it is only lack of acceptance of these relationships as normal–that causes a problem. There was a guy who actually argued it was healthy for the children–he was trying to start a charity to educate the public–luckily he was turned down. Are you so confident that the forces who want to normalize everythning can be stopped? Have you looked at the costumes some young girls wear on Halloween? I don’t think this was offered as an arguement against gay marriage but rather as a prediction of where this society eventually ends up.

Peace,
Mark

Obviously, NAMBLA and the pedophiles won’t be initially demanding the “right” to marry their “victims”, but it will be incremented slowly, as Planned Parenthood has already succeeded in sexualizing our children at younger and younger ages. Teenagers, according to PP, have a “right” to sexual relationships, 10 year olds have the “right” to learn about all manner of deviant sexual activity. They provide birth control and abortions to girls as young as 12 or 13 without parental consent, when children this age are not legally able to consent to sexual activity. They already turn a blind eye to child rape. The pedophiles have an advocate in PP. They probably won’t even have to go to court!

In Christ,
Ellen

 

[90Domer]

And how is denying civil rights compassionate?

How is affirming someone in his/her sin compassionate? And since when is SSM a civil right’s issue? As I said elsewhere, I have never seen “Gay Only” drinking fountains.

 

[90Domer]

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.

Exactly. Just because some people don’t like the option presented to them (SSA afflicted people don’t like the fact that they can only marry people of the opposite sex) does not mean that they are being discriminated exist. The law is the same for all. Nobody said life was fair.

 

[CopticChristian]

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.

MA,

No, Jesus said…in the beginning it was not so…Male and Female He creted them…

 

[marymary1975]

And how is denying civil rights compassionate?

I haven’t read all the posts but I am responding to this because I can’t understand how people don’t see the trap in here. First of all, this entire “equal rights for gay marriage” and denying of their civil right is a big am fat lie. Equal rights and civil rights mean same thong for everybody, and let me repeat for EVERYBODY!!! Therefore, are you fighting for polygamy to be allowed? Are you fighting for the legalization of bigamy? Are you fighting for the right to marry minor? Are you fighting for the right to incest or the eight to be able to marry your parents and your siblings (and given that polygamy and Polynesia have to be allowed under this theory then you must be fighting to be able to marry your mother and your sister and your romantic partner), are you fighting for the right to marry for legally incompetent people?

If your answer to any of those questions is no, or of the equality movement is not fighting for any of the above stated, then both the civil right and equality arguments are not true because it is not for everybody, you are asking for the granting of a legal status to a selected group of people - homosexuals. What makes you think that homosexuals should have a special legal status and that polygamists don’t have the right to that same status?

The gay movement is selling you a lie and you are buying it. I don’t think that Jesus would have approved of lying to people to brainwash them into accepting something. This is not about civil rights, this is about brainwashing people.

 

[marymary1975]

MA,

No, Jesus said…in the beginning it was not so…Male and Female He creted them…

 

[marymary1975]

There is no right to evil.

 

[Slavonic]

I haven’t read all the posts but I am responding to this because I can’t understand how people don’t see the trap in here. First of all, this entire “equal rights for gay marriage” and denying of their civil right is a big am fat lie. Equal rights and civil rights mean same thong for everybody, and let me repeat for EVERYBODY!!! Therefore, are you fighting for polygamy to be allowed? Are you fighting for the legalization of bigamy? Are you fighting for the right to marry minor? Are you fighting for the right to incest or the eight to be able to marry your parents and your siblings (and given that polygamy and Polynesia have to be allowed under this theory then you must be fighting to be able to marry your mother and your sister and your romantic partner), are you fighting for the right to marry for legally incompetent people?

If your answer to any of those questions is no, or of the equality movement is not fighting for any of the above stated, then both the civil right and equality arguments are not true because it is not for everybody, you are asking for the granting of a legal status to a selected group of people - homosexuals. What makes you think that homosexuals should have a special legal status and that polygamists don’t have the right to that same status?

The gay movement is selling you a lie and you are buying it. I don’t think that Jesus would have approved of lying to people to brainwash them into accepting something. This is not about civil rights, this is about brainwashing people.

Gay marriage is not necessarily about the right to marry. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) case that went before the Supreme Court this week was about the 5th Amendment right to equal protection under law. Currently DOMA prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. The grievance addressed in the case has to with an inheritance tax that the surviving spouse had to pay after her wife died (the couple lived in NY and were married in Canada and after NY State recognized same-sex marriage, their marriage was legal in the State of New York). Had they been a married male-female couple with a legally recognized marriage in New York State there would have been no inheritance tax to pay to the federal government. Because of DOMA the federal government was prohibited from proving this inheritance tax benefit because they were a female-female couple. Can you give a reason why legal marriages should be treated differently? Remember that US States are the one’s who issue marriage licenses, not the federal government.

 

[marymary1975]

Gay marriage is not necessarily about the right to marry. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) case that went before the Supreme Court this week was about the 5th Amendment right to equal protection under law. Currently DOMA prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. The grievance addressed in the case has to with an inheritance tax that the surviving spouse had to pay after her wife died (the couple lived in NY and were married in Canada and after NY State recognized same-sex marriage, their marriage was legal in the State of New York). Had they been a married male-female couple with a legally recognized marriage in New York State there would have been no inheritance tax to pay to the federal government. Because of DOMA the federal government was prohibited from proving this inheritance tax benefit because they were a female-female couple. Can you give a reason why legal marriages should be treated differently? Remember that US States are the one’s who issue marriage licenses, not the federal government.

Your question doesn’t have an answer for the simple fact that it has not been decided yet. Legally speaking there is a big question as to whether Congress had the power to enact DOMA. The federal government is a government of limited powers that cannot enact laws beyond what has been expressly granted in the constitution so there is a big probability that the Court may find that enacting DOMA was beyond congress powers. In that case, then there would be no right for the federal government to treat marriages differently so the feds would have either to eliminate all benefits for any kind of marriage, so nobody gets nothing or then provide them according to State law. However, of the court finds that congress had power and my guess is that the only avenue they can use (because that has been their war horse lately) is taxes. feds have very broad powers over taxes so yes under taxes they can treat people differently because of their tax power. But again, this is just speculation and you will have to wait until the court’s decision to get an answer

 

[CaliLobo]

latingirl:

Marriage is NOT a civil right. It is a religious sacrament. It is an institution of religion, always has been and always will be because God himself instituted it at creation. You keep trying to separate marriage from it’s religious context which is like trying to separate a bar-mitzvah from a religious context.

If it’s a religious sacrament only, then the CC should be advocating the Ron Paul solution and getting the government out of marriage. Also most Jews I encounter separate most of their Jewishness from the religious context.
Robyn p:

People often make a false dichotomy between Jesus and the Church, but Jesus himself said to the apostles, “If they hear you, they hear me, if they reject you, they reject me. If they reject me, they reject the one who sent me.”(LK 10:16) Jesus identifies himself with His Church, He gives her authority to speak for him. There never has and never will be a conflict between the two.

Thanks for the good point on this and the next post.

vsedriver:

Besides, gays already have equal civil rights to marry…

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.

edwest2:

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

This is one of the most common arguments against SSM but it’s cliched and old. It assumes that there is an equivalency between SSM, incest, polygamy, and pedophilia.

However, incest, polygamy and pedophilia are hurtful to the victims (deformed children, women, and children). SSM, on the other hand, is between two consenting adults, and with the safety of condoms, is not hurtful to those involved. Studies have shown that children of same-sex partners do just as fine as children of opposite-sex partners.
Michael Allen:

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.

Agreed. Jesus said nothing about civil laws, and the Church has been at its worst historically when it got most involved politically.

Elizabeth502:

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.

How do you know that your responses in (a) and (b) are not anachronisms themselves? Besides, if your argument is right, then there are ZERO Bible verses that are on point regarding SSM!

 

[CaliLobo]

CopticChristian:

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…

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…

Yes, the Bible verses you quoted above call for PERSONAL responses. They are not sociopolitical responses. The “woe to you” quotes below are not in the Bible, and are your own fiction.

Although Rome wasn’t a democracy, Jesus never preached that we should overthrow Rome, start an insurrection, or change its laws. Jesus was more concerned about personal repentance.

CopticChristian:

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…

Criminalizing and incarcerating people for prostitution is not compassionate. Prostitution is the world’s oldest profession, between consenting adults. Laws banning it will only turn it underground, making it even more unsafe for participants. What’s better is organized, legalized red light districts with labor unions and mandatory STD testing, like the one in Amsterdam (which is actually a neat place from a tourist perspective). Preaching the Gospel and outreach is the best way to change people’s behavior here.

Criminalizing and incarcerating people for drug use is not compassionate. These are victimless crimes–the only victim is the drug user. Jail doesn’t help drug users and addicts change their lives–when they get out they will be repeat offenders. What’s better is decriminalization and a focus on medical treatment and counseling, like what is going on in Portugal.

I am not calling for child porn to be legalized! Once again, sex acts involving children cannot be analogized to SSM. SSM is between consenting adults.

 

[CaliLobo]

CopticChristian:

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

Let’s paste it here!

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8 Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

13 So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

So how is rejecting the rights of gays to marry:
Patient, kind, not envious, not boastful, not arrogant, not rude, not insistent on its own way, not irritable or resentful, rejoicing with the truth, bearing all things, believing all things, hoping all things, enduring all things, never ending?

I see the Christian anti-gay movement as the opposite of many of these attributes.

 

[Lochias]

If it’s a religious sacrament only, then the CC should be advocating the Ron Paul solution and getting the government out of marriage.

The government is the one butting in. Civil marriage has long been recognized as desirable between men and women, because it creates more men and women, and also a stable environment for those men and women to grow up in.

Also most Jews I encounter separate most of their Jewishness from the religious context.

…if you met a self-professed scuba diver who said he’d never gone swimming, would you trust him to know much about scuba diving at all?

This is one of the most common arguments against SSM but it’s cliched and old. It assumes that there is an equivalency between SSM, incest, polygamy, and pedophilia.

However, incest, polygamy and pedophilia are hurtful to the victims (deformed children, women, and children). SSM, on the other hand, is between two consenting adults, and with the safety of condoms, is not hurtful to those involved. Studies have shown that children of same-sex partners do just as fine as children of opposite-sex partners.

Condoms are not foolproof. And besides, suicides are typically considered to be done with consent of some form or fashion…do you think THOSE are harmless? And, too, just as many studies have shown that children of same-sex partners do NOT do as well as their counterparts in a heterosexual home.

Agreed. Jesus said nothing about civil laws, and the Church has been at its worst historically when it got most involved politically.

Jesus didn’t have to, he gave everyone more credit than you are. This question has been answered multiple times…wake up, and learn.

How do you know that your responses in (a) and (b) are not anachronisms themselves? Besides, if your argument is right, then there are ZERO Bible verses that are on point regarding SSM!

…do you seriously, SERIOUSLY think that if Jesus was accepting about SSM, there wouldn’t a TON written about that by the very-much NOT SSM-accepting Jewish people?

PLEASE, think about that for a little while. How likely do you REALLY think it is that such a historic piece of information for the Jewish people would not be mentioned AT ALL in the Bible?

Do you not think it’s MUCH more likely that Jesus simply followed the law on that score, and they all did too?