My analysis of why extending marriage rights to gays is Biblical: Why do I care so much?

[CaliLobo]

Hello CAF,
I want to admit that despite the rich history, tradition, and academic writings, the Vatican’s stance on the gay marriage issue is the number one thing preventing me from converting to Catholicism.

I have been accused here of being a one-trick pony regarding this issue. However, I am convicted that my position is true and I refuse to be on what will be seen by historians as the wrong side of what is clearly a civil rights issue.

I want to share with you why I believe my position is Biblical. The following is a private message response to a Facebook debate I had in 2012:

B,

I used to be a staunch opposer of gay marriage rights because I believed that allowing gay marriages would be a permanent alteration of the concepts of family, marriage, and gender.

But now I believe that supporting the gay civil rights movement and extending marriage rights to gays is Biblical. I explain below.

In your post you said (to paraphrase) that being a Christian involves knowing God and His word, knowing what grieves His heart, obedience to God’s calling, denying self and taking up the cross, and taking the unpopular route even if the world persecutes you. Now is the time when the rubber meets the road, you declared. You also said that we’re trying to appease society by appearing loving and non-judgemental.

I don’t contest that homosexual sex is a sin in the Bible (although some Christians believe the Bible only condemns pederasty and not all gay sex). However, this verse must be balanced with the number two commandment of Jesus to love your neighbor as you love yourself.

Have Christians done a good job of following this commandment, which is in God’s Word, with respect to gays? Sadly, they have not. Instead, their conduct, which they believe is biblical, instead manifests as hatred for gays.

The civil rights movement was influenced by Christianity. Why? Because the Bible says that we were all created in God’s image, since Adam was created in God’s image. Hence, the movement toward racial equality has gained much traction and made much progress. May I remind you that in the past, there were laws forbidding white-black intermarriage. Today we are ashamed that we had those laws in our history. Today, single-ethnicity churches are being replaced by multiethnic churches, and God is pleased.

When Christians say that gays cannot have the same right to marry their partners the way heterosexual people do, what are we really saying? Essentially we are saying that gays are unequal to straight people, that they are somehow less worthy or less deserving of the rights and privileges that other humans have in life.

How can this not be construed as a message of hate?

If you believe (as some Christians do) that rights come from God, then who are we to restrict the rights of others? When are we allowed to restrict the rights of others? And if rights are simply a worldly thing, then why does it matter what the world does to alter them?

Jesus was never a politician. He had the golden opportunity to lead an army to bring Israel out of Roman occupation and overthrow Roman leaders. Did he do that? No. Instead all he said about politics was to “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s.” Jesus was more concerned about the spiritual war going on inside all of us. Human politics and law weren’t a big deal to him.

Although the Bible forbids homosexual conduct, the Bible is clear that the world does not believe. Obviously the world’s political system isn’t going to conform to Christianity, because it’s worldly. However, there is nothing in God’s Word that says that we must deny political and legal rights to others. Neither is it a sound evangelical method to use the political or legal process to try to get the world in line with our views. This is not a tactic that Jesus or Paul used, and is therefore unbiblical.

This is not caving in or appeasement. I believe my position is Biblical. We have not done a good job of being welcoming to gays at church, or being loving to those who are struggling with homosexuality. Instead, all they hear is that they are going to hell for their sins. These people honestly believe they naturally turned out to be gay, and that they were always gay. Can you fathom the struggle going on inside them? How could they believe it’s a sin when they feel they were “created by God this way”? No wonder why the gay community is so thriving, for we at church have rejected them, and considered them misfits, even abominations. But didn’t God create them? [References to the church we used to attend deleted here.]

The Church should stop fighting the unnecessary battle to deny political and legal rights of gays to marry someone of the same gender. Doing so will send the message to gays that we no longer hate them. It will make the church welcoming to gays, their friends, and loved ones. It will make the church relevant to our generation once again. And God will be pleased, as the church will be doing a better job following Jesus’ second commandment.

Someday, gay marriage rights will be allowed nationwide, and Americans of the future will look with disdain at our generation for even considering discrimination against gays, the same way we look at disdain for those who owned black slaves.

Thanks for reading this far!
J

 

[St_Francis]

When Christians say that gays cannot have the same right to marry their partners the way heterosexual people do, what are we really saying? Essentially we are saying that gays are unequal to straight people, that they are somehow less worthy or less deserving of the rights and privileges that other humans have in life.

But this is not what we are saying. What we are saying is that homosexual activity is sinful, not the orientation, which didn’t even exist as an idea until Freud. But we are all born with sinful tendencies of our own which feel very natural to us. I have a terrible temper and I have to force myself not to blow up all the time and there are times when not blowing up seems like an outright lie and even the wrong thing to do. But I continue to struggle along with not displaying my temper.

There are also many people in the world who will never marry, even tho they want to. Marriage requires two people and if someone is in a state that others are extremely unlikely to agree to marry them or in which marriage is forbodden to them, they too suffer being deprived of marriage. Homosexuals act like everyone in the world is leading a completely hapoy life accompanied by a spouse and they are the only ones left out, and this is simply not true.

Instead, all they hear is that they are going to hell for their sins. These people honestly believe they naturally turned out to be gay, and that they were always gay.

And everyone else shoudl also be hearing that they are going to Hell for their sins, if they do not repent and amend their lives. The Church is a hospitall for sinners, after all.

However, I must say that in 17 years, I have never heard a sermon of homily like that, and i have never even heard a homily on mortal sin making us deserving of the punisents of Hell without the reminder that Christ came to save us and we can be saved simply by repenting, confessing sacramentally, and amending our lives.

 

[The_Reginator]

CaliLobo,

I encourage you to watch the following video to help understand a genuine Catholic response to someone suffering with the cross of homosexuality.
You never hear things spoken this way in the press, or hardly even here at CAF as we all too often get caught up in our emotional debates.

What I take from this is -]two/-]three-fold:
1/ We must have immense compassion for anyone with same sex attraction.
2/ This is a great cross to bear, but when God gives you a heavy cross you also get great rewards.
3/ We can always use our suffering to help others by offering the suffering to God for someone else. This is especially true for same sex attraction as it is very difficult to live with while remaining faithful.

Please take out six minutes and listen to this view point:
churchmilitant.tv/daily/?today=2013-06-13

 

[JerryZ]

Although** the Bible forbids homosexual conduct,** the Bible is clear that the world does not believe. Obviously the world’s political system isn’t going to conform to Christianity, because it’s worldly. However, there is nothing in God’s Word that says that we must deny political and legal rights to others. Neither is it a sound evangelical method to use the political or legal process to try to get the world in line with our views. This is not a tactic that Jesus or Paul used, and is therefore unbiblical.

This is not caving in or appeasement. I believe my position is Biblical. We have not done a good job of being welcoming to gays at church, or being loving to those who are struggling with homosexuality. Instead, all they hear is that they are going to hell for their sins. These people honestly believe they naturally turned out to be gay, and that they were always gay. Can you fathom the struggle going on inside them? How could they believe it’s a sin when they feel they were “created by God this way”? No wonder why the gay community is so thriving, for we at church have rejected them, and considered them misfits, even abominations. But didn’t God create them? [References to the church we used to attend deleted here.]

The Church should stop fighting the unnecessary battle to deny political and legal rights of gays to marry someone of the same gender. Doing so will send the message to gays that we no longer hate them. It will make the church welcoming to gays, their friends, and loved ones. It will make the church relevant to our generation once again. And God will be pleased, as the church will be doing a better job following Jesus’ second commandment.

Soo let me try to understand your position. You clearly aknowledge that to act upon SSA tendencies is sinful.
However we need to allow them to act upon these tendencies and close an eye on this for the sake of being relevant and attract them to our Church.

I guess moral relativity is quite an art eh?
In order to close an eye to the sin we would have to throw away the Bible don’t you think?
And I guess God must be on very good terms with you that you state to know His mind on this iterpretation of yours.
Soo if being married I feel the urge or need to go around fornicating with as many beautiful women as possible I should just be able to do it for “I was born this way”
Adultery is a very serious sin in the Bible, it is actually listed ahead of homosexuality.
The Church cannot condone sin no matter how much you want to sugar coat it. It is still black tar my friend death to our soul.

If you do not preach the gospel you will never convert anyone, and you do not preach it by conforming to the sins of the world.
St. Paul could have done that 2000 years ago don’t you think?
Or do you really believe that homosexuality is something new?
If it is how come it is spelled out as sin in the oldest book of the Bible the OT AND the many letters of St Paul?
Nothing new under the sun.

 

[Jon_S_1]

B,

I don’t contest that homosexual sex is a sin in the Bible (although some Christians believe the Bible only condemns pederasty and not all gay sex). However, this verse must be balanced with the number two commandment of Jesus to love your neighbor as you love yourself.

Do you take this on view on all sins? You should for consistency. Of course we are to love everyone, but apparently you equate loving someone with allowing them to do whatever they want. If Gay sex is a sin as you state, and of course the Bible States, then is it truly loving someone to condone that behavior? Is it truly loving lets say a murderer to allow them to continue to murder, to exercise their right to sin? Maybe an extreme example. How about this, what if you had a friend who loves pornography. They watch it continuously and it affects their relationships. Is it loving them to say its legal so let him enjoy his right to view it?

The civil rights movement was influenced by Christianity. Why? Because the Bible says that we were all created in God’s image, since Adam was created in God’s image. Hence, the movement toward racial equality has gained much traction and made much progress. May I remind you that in the past, there were laws forbidding white-black intermarriage. Today we are ashamed that we had those laws in our history. Today, single-ethnicity churches are being replaced by multiethnic churches, and God is pleased.

I am pretty tired of this argument. It is a valid argument if businesses and people made gays use separate bathrooms or eat in separate restaurants or sit in the back of the bus. Then you would have a valid argument. But gays have all of these rights. In fact they have every right of a single person, and in some cases (domestic partnerships) more rights. I am single, and do not get the tax advantages of a married person, am I being discriminated against for being single? Perhaps by your definitions. You must realize that the reason the laws exist for tax breaks for marriage is to encourage people to procreate and raise future tax payers. Thats it…Thats the only reason the government is in the tax break for marriage business. Obviously gay marriage does not allow for the easy creation of future tax payers anymore than a single person.

When Christians say that gays cannot have the same right to marry their partners the way heterosexual people do, what are we really saying? Essentially we are saying that gays are unequal to straight people, that they are somehow less worthy or less deserving of the rights and privileges that other humans have in life.

How can this not be construed as a message of hate?

See my above quote. It is no more hate than it would be to say that a single person is hated. Or perhaps you would say we hate polygamists because we don’t let them as consenting adults get married. Do we hate incestuous relationships because we don’t allow those either?]

If you believe (as some Christians do) that rights come from God, then who are we to restrict the rights of others? When are we allowed to restrict the rights of others? And if rights are simply a worldly thing, then why does it matter what the world does to alter them?

Rights do come from God, but do we all have a right to sin and do whatever we want? Is that what comes from God? We restrict the rights of others all the time. You can’t speed on the highway and you can’t steal or murder, you can’t marry your brother or sister and you can’t do thousands of other things. This is no different.

Jesus was never a politician. He had the golden opportunity to lead an army to bring Israel out of Roman occupation and overthrow Roman leaders. Did he do that? No. Instead all he said about politics was to “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s.” Jesus was more concerned about the spiritual war going on inside all of us. Human politics and law weren’t a big deal to him.

Although the Bible forbids homosexual conduct, the Bible is clear that the world does not believe. Obviously the world’s political system isn’t going to conform to Christianity, because it’s worldly. However, there is nothing in God’s Word that says that we must deny political and legal rights to others. Neither is it a sound evangelical method to use the political or legal process to try to get the world in line with our views. This is not a tactic that Jesus or Paul used, and is therefore unbiblical.

I am curious if you think the second century martyrs would agree with you? I suppose you would say they should have just sat back and let the Romans kill them as their law allowed. Who were the Christians to demand that the laws of Rome change? Of course pushing their opinion on the Romans would have affected Evangelization I am sure, so good thing they just watched the society unwind around them. Please don’t be so short sighted.

Please remember too, that our laws do not discriminate against gays. They are welcome in our churches and to the sacraments as long as they are not engaged in sexual behavior. (True for heterosexual behavior out of wedlock too). There is no discrimination. There is simply a push to ensure that this sexually immoral behavior does not become the norm of our land. It is against the natural law and God’s law.

 

[Havard]

If you’re truly looking to make everything fair, those libertarians who advocate that the government stay out of marriage altogether offer (IMHO) a more consistent argument.

The reason the Catholic Church doesn’t agree with that (again, IMHO better) argument is that there is something fundamentally necessary to society about the union of man and woman. I know plenty of libertarians who don’t agree with it, but at least most admit that it is a special union.

Open marriage benefits up to gay unions and the libertarian argument wins. Explain how gay relationships are more foundational to society than those of siblings, parent-child, or platonic friends. All of whom raise children, not to mention all the struggling single parents out there.

 

[jesus4ever]

You are saying that you want to become catholic but the way you are writing does not seem that at all. And you are blaming us cathoilic for saying things in which we never said.

You say that you are convicted in your position to be true and that you refuse to be on what will be seen by historians as the wrong side of what is clearly a civil rights issue. What you must understand and I know that this is hard for you is that it’s not what we want but what God wants. If you see it from God point of view you will then relize from rigfht and wrong.

Dont forget God loves us and WANTS the Best for us. I dont see a person wanting to become Catholic here. I see another person who thinks he is right and everyone else is wrong then does everything they can to throw this in our face. Someone who also will do everything they can until the laws are changed even thou this is not what GOD wants. Dont forget it take a man and a women to make a baby not two men or two women so whats the point in marrage then. And also I have you know that their are gays out their who even say whats the point in marrage.

 

[JimG]

Reading your original post, it seems to me that your reasons for supporting gay marriage could be equally applied to any other sort of sexual proclivity. if gays are discriminated against by being unable to marry member of the same sex, so are polygamists, pederasts, polyandrists, and a huge number of of others. I know—this will be seen as a slippery slope fallacy, but I do think that the slope is both slippery and steep. There are similar reasons that can be advanced for each of these groups for being allowed to marry their partners. When gay marriage succeeds, they will put forth their own arguments for equality.

But mainly, I worry about the very thing that you have now quit worrying about, when you say that “I used to be a staunch opposer of gay marriage rights because I believed that allowing gay marriages would be a permanent alteration of the concepts of family, marriage, and gender.”

I don’t see how same sex marriage can possibly have any other result but a permanent alteration of the concepts of family, marriage, and gender. Indeed, such ideas are already playing out. They will ultimately express themselves in law, custom, regulations, and public policy. Marriage as it has been will be no more.

And I don’t think our civilization will survive that devolution intact.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

There are so many fallacies, false premises and false definitions in the OP it’s difficult to even know where to start.

First and foremost I have to ask the person the philosophical question what is love?

What does the Church and the Bible mean by love?

 

[The_Reginator]

Reading your original post, it seems to me that your reasons for supporting gay marriage could be equally applied to any other sort of sexual proclivity. if gays are discriminated against by being unable to marry member of the same sex, so are polygamists, pederasts, polyandrists, and a huge number of of others. I know—this will be seen as a slippery slope fallacy, but I do think that the slope is both slippery and steep. There are similar reasons that can be advanced for each of these groups for being allowed to marry their partners. When gay marriage succeeds, they will put forth their own arguments for equality.

But mainly, I worry about the very thing that you have now quit worrying about, when you say that “I used to be a staunch opposer of gay marriage rights because I believed that allowing gay marriages would be a permanent alteration of the concepts of family, marriage, and gender.”

I don’t see how same sex marriage can possibly have any other result but a permanent alteration of the concepts of family, marriage, and gender. Indeed, such ideas are already playing out. They will ultimately express themselves in law, custom, regulations, and public policy. Marriage as it has been will be no more.

And I don’t think our civilization will survive that devolution intact.

I’m afraid you are too correct Jim.
In Canada, when the demands for same sex ‘marriage’ began some people said that this was a slippery slope that would lead to legalized polygamy. The gay rights folk called this nonsense and scare mongering.
Today we have this:
**Polyamorists Battle for Legal Recognition in Canada **

(I hope CaliLobo is praying and reading all these posts.)

 

[altms]

May I remind you that in the past, there were laws forbidding white-black intermarriage. Today we are ashamed that we had those laws in our history. Today, single-ethnicity churches are being replaced by multiethnic churches, and God is pleased.

Sorry, but when someone starts comparing interracial marriage with SSM, that’s when I stop reading the post altogether.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Hello CAF,
I want to admit that despite the rich history, tradition, and academic writings, the Vatican’s stance on the gay marriage issue is the number one thing preventing me from converting to Catholicism.

I have been accused here of being a one-trick pony regarding this issue. However, I am convicted that my position is true and I refuse to be on what will be seen by historians as the wrong side of what is clearly a civil rights issue.
J

Homosexuals can get married. They choose not to. Once you realize that your difficulties will pass.

The Church is opposed to immoral behaviour, choices, actions. The law is no different: it proscribes many behaviours, choices and actions that could easily be “justified” by perverting notions of rights or liberties. The Bible is clear:

18 God’s anger is being revealed from heaven; his anger against the impiety and wrong-doing of the men whose wrong-doing denies his truth its full scope. . . . 24 That is why God abandoned their lustful hearts to filthy practices of dishonouring their own bodies among themselves. 25 **They had exchanged God’s truth for a lie, reverencing and worshipping the creature in preference to the Creator ** (blessed is he for ever, Amen); 26 and, in return, God abandoned them to passions which brought dishonour to themselves. Their women exchanged natural for unnatural intercourse; 27 and the men, on their side, giving up natural intercourse with women, were burnt up with desire for each other; men practising vileness with their fellow men. Thus they have received a fitting retribution for their false belief.[2]

28 And as they scorned to keep God in their view, so God has abandoned them to a frame of mind worthy of all scorn, that prompts them to disgraceful acts. 29 They are versed in every kind of injustice, knavery, impurity, avarice, and ill-will; spiteful, murderous, contentious, deceitful, depraved, backbiters, 30 slanderers, God’s enemies; insolent, haughty, vainglorious; inventive in wickedness, disobedient to their parents; 31 without prudence, without honour, without love, without loyalty, without pity. 32 Yet, with the just decree of God before their minds, they never grasped the truth that those who so live are deserving of death; not only those who commit such acts, but those who countenance such a manner of living.[3]

6 The cities of Sodom and Gomorrha, too, he punished with utter ruin, turning them to ashes, for an example to the godless of a later time. 7 Yet he saved Lot, an innocent man who was overborne by the violence and the wantonness of his wicked neighbours; 8 eye and ear could testify to his innocence, although he lived among men whose lawless doings, day after day, wrung that blameless heart.[2] 9 The Lord does not find it difficult to save his true worshippers from their trials, while the wrong-doers must await the day of judgement, marked down for torment; 10 those especially, who follow the defiling appetites of their corrupt nature, and make light of authority. So bold are they, so obstinate, that they are not afraid to bring in new and blasphemous ways of thought,[3] 11 whereas angels, with a strength and a capacity far above theirs, do not bring on themselves any charge so abominable.[4]

12 Such men, like dumb creatures that are born to be trapped and destroyed, sneer at what they cannot understand, and will soon perish in their own corruption; 13 they will have the reward their wickedness has deserved. To live in luxury while the day lasts is all their pleasure; what a stain they are, what a disfigurement, when they revel in the luxury of their own banquets, as they fare sumptuously at your side![5] 14 Their eyes feast on adultery, insatiable of sin; and they know how to win wavering souls to their purpose, so skilled is all their accursed brood at gaining its own ends. 15 They have gone far astray, leaving the true path, and following the path of Balaam the son of Bosor, the man who was content to take pay in the cause of wrong, 16 and was rebuked for his perversity, when the dumb beast spoke with a human voice, to bring a prophet to his senses.[6] 17 They are wells with no water in them, clouds driven before the storm; the lot that awaits them is darkness and gloom. 18 Using fine phrases that have no meaning, they bait their hook with the wanton appetites of sense, to catch those who have had but a short respite from false teaching.[7] 19 What do they offer them? Liberty. And all the time they themselves are enslaved to worldly corruption; whatever influence gets the better of a man, becomes his master. 20 That they should have been rescued, by acknowledging our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, from the world’s pollution, and then been entangled and overpowered by it a second time, means that their last state is worse than the first. 21 Better for them, never to have found their way to justification, than to have found it, and then turned their backs on the holy law once handed down to them. 22 What has happened to them proves the truth of the proverb, The dog is back at his own vomit again. Wash the sow, and you find her wallowing in the mire.[8]

7 So with Sodom and Gomorrha and the cities round them, which fell into the same debauchery as their neighbours and pursued unnatural lust; they bear, for our warning, their sentence of eternal fire. 8 And so it is with these as it was with those others; they pollute nature, they defy authority, they insult august names.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Don’t know what to add to what others have already said, but I guess a couple of points:

(i) Would you then support polygamous and incestuous marriages, since such unions could be defended on the same grounds you defend same-sex marriage?

(ii) Just because some Christians (and indeed, not all) have treated homosexual people terribly, it doesn’t follow from this that the complete opposite, i.e. embracing homosexuality, is either correct or in-line with God’s commandment of love. Jesus could be pretty harsh too when it came to condemning sinful actions (remember all those “Woes” on the Pharisees and the teachers of law?).

 

[Michael57]

Hello CAF,
I want to admit that despite the rich history, tradition, and academic writings, the Vatican’s stance on the gay marriage issue is the number one thing preventing me from converting to Catholicism.

I have been accused here of being a one-trick pony regarding this issue. However, I am convicted that my position is true and I refuse to be on what will be seen by historians as the wrong side of what is clearly a civil rights issue.

I want to share with you why I believe my position is Biblical. The following is a private message response to a Facebook debate I had in 2012:

Well, this is new! Not.

So, now instead of quoting non-Catholic bloggers (with a whopping following of 42 readers! :whacky as authoritative and something the Catholic Church should immediately change the course of 2,000 years of doctrine and teaching, you’re now citing a post on Facebook?

I think that last thread on the subject was closed, wasn’t it?

You know, for someone who professed that they were a “prosecuting attorney”, that argument of yours sounds pretty weak. I’ll give you this much credit though, I would have never come up with holding myself hostage to force the Catholic Church to change! Very Clevon Little/Blazing Saddles there.

“You’d better change the way you do things or else! Why, I’ll go to some other Church if you don’t change your teachings on this right now! That’ll show you!”

My guess is that if that’s what is preventing you from being converted to Catholicism, there’s probably a lot more to the story that you’re not talking about here that’s also standing in the way. Maybe you should try some other religion? Perhaps the Catholic faith is not for you?

After all, it has 2,000 years of teaching the following: this and this and this one too

And, I’m betting that you won’t look at those links.

If you’re honest with yourself about a desire to convert to Catholicism, then give the links a look, and look at what Pope John Paul II signed.

You can’t hold yourself hostage over this. The Church isn’t going to change for you. Or for me, or for this current transitory social issue. I think the one that is on the “wrong side of history” is more likely yourself, and if that’s your prime motivation that determines converting or not converting, well, perhaps you need to find someplace that gives you the sense of pride that you appear to be seeking in a church.

So, good luck with that. Hope you find what you’re looking for, since you’re not getting it here. I’ll keep you in my prayers.

One other thing…you failed to make a “biblical” argument for your position.

Go to the links provided, and you’ll see a biblical argument, and the thoughts of the Early Church Fathers, and it doesn’t support your side.