Love one another—the rest is commentary.
We’ve forgotten love.
And I am so sorry for it.
I’m pained so deeply by these Christian statements on the social, spiritual, and ethical implications of allowing same-sex couples the right to be married in the eyes of the United States government. We, and I say we, because I am a part of the Church of Jesus Christ, who through his life, death, and resurrection has defeated the powers of death and destruction for the sake of all mankind in order that we might have life. I am a part of the communal body of believers who swear in their life that they believe that Christ died, was buried, and then was raised from the dead by the deep and universal power of God.
How can we attest to love gay and lesbian creations of God when we purport to them that they shouldn’t be afforded the same rights that we as heterosexuals enjoy?
|
Because I am part of that body I feel compelled to speak out—compelled to rebuke that which is hate and cradle that which is the truth found only in the grace and power of Christ Jesus our Lord.
I read the statements of bigotry and discrimination put out against our homosexual brothers and sisters, and I just want to apologize. I just want to hide away and not have to keep telling them that I don’t hate them. God doesn’t hate them, but rather that he loves them more immeasurably than they can ever know. A love that surpasses the ultimate final knowledge mankind can ever attain; a love rooted in an unimaginable light; a love so powerful that it shakes the very foundations of reality and puts to rest the powers of death.
We worship a Messiah who began a kingdom in a death tomb, where he sits upon a mercy seat, and decreed a line in the sand when the religious princes of the day wanted to stone the unclean. In the eyes of the law, rather how they saw the law, thought it best to put a prostitute to death—to smash her brains in with stones because she was an abomination in the law scrolls of their ancestors. They were wrong. The Law is not the measure of our faith; it is not the full immutable truth. We ourselves are no longer bound to the stones of the Hebrews, we are no longer fettered to blood sacrifice, holy wars, and oppression of women and children.
The Pharisees were wrong to call for a stoning.
And the Church is wrong to refuse homosexuals the right to marry.
How can we attest to love gay and lesbian creations of God when we purport to them that they shouldn’t be afforded the same rights that we as heterosexuals enjoy?
We are called to love above all things, love in spite of hatred, persecution, religious belief, and even under penalty of death. We are called to stare into the face of our persecutors and shoulder the yoke of love with every fiber of our being.
Love endures persecution, but also rebukes it. Love hopes for all true and glorious things. Love never fails.
Love surrenders.
It surrenders itself unto death, submits itself to all others, and makes itself a servant to both the oppressed and the oppressors.
Love never fails because it is sufficient unto itself. Love never fails because true love dispenses with selfishness, in the way that perfect humility does away with modesty. Love never fails because true love does not see gender, race, or class; rather it only sees the immaculate creation of God in its pure and glorious light.
True love, the love Christians are called into, never seeks to condemn or oppress, but delights in submitting.
“Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. The law and the prophets are summed in this.”
To love our neighbors is to provide them every single right that we entertain as heterosexuals. There is no other course!
This isn’t an issue about grace, it is an issue that is chiefly rooted in justice. It is unjust to segregate a section of God’s creation because we cannot grasp how they could love someone of the same gender. It is a social crucifixion! Where instead of Christ on the cross, we choose to nail equality to the dogwood and let it suffocate and die, and then cheer when it has taken its final breath. We’ll say: “WE WON, WE WON, THE HOMOSEXUALS DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY! MARRIAGE IS OURS! JOY BE TO GOD, WE KEPT WHAT WAS OURS!” Instead of sharing that which we know to be the deepest commitment we can make to another human.
We want to refuse marriage to homosexuals not because they are different, but because we know it proves they are equal with heterosexuals. And if they are equal with heterosexuals, we’ll be afraid to ask, “What if being gay isn’t a sin?” and “If being gay isn’t a sin, what does that say about my entire paradigm of what I think about sin and what it means to love unconditionally?”
We aren’t worried about what allowing gays to marry will mean for them, we’re afraid of what it will do to us. It will force us to ask questions.
Instead we’ll do murder. Sacrifice it to our vanity and religious zealotry, because we refused to love when our calling was to forever love without question or reservation.
We will one day look back and see the historical record of Christian masses standing opposite an oppressed minority, screaming like the Pharisees who collected stones, espousing puritanical dogma, and serving a political agenda that stems from a root planted in a garden of selfishness. It will be a time that we’ll tell our children we chose to serve ourselves and not Christ. And we were wrong to do so.
Read more on Ethics & Values.
Image credit: laverrue/Flickr
Beautiful. If we repeat the message enough, maybe the haters (fear + lies + stereotypes = hate) will finally get a clue. *fellow straight ally fist bump*
Another *fellow straight ally fist bump!* Yes, it’s about more than 1000 federal rights denied to gay couples. It’s also about recognizing that in no other aspect of life would we use the knowledge base of the Bronze Age as part of our decision-making process. The writers of the Bible knew as much about human sexuality as they knew about the Hubble Constant. This is to say – nothing. It’s about recognizing, as the author does, that there is not one Christian position on this issue. My Christian church has been blessing same-sex unions for more than 20 years. It’s… Read more »
The gay marriage outrage isn’t about religion. It’s about love, finances, benefits, taxes and wills. WWJD? Stop the stupid hate.
I cannot tell you how much I agree. I was reared S Baptist and so much of my life “network” is from the conservative end. Church members questioned my faith and salvation and most think I have fallen off the “cliff of liberalism” (believing Jesus himself was a liberal…might be a marked compliment actually) and question my morals as a person. I have said several times that supporting (or in the least, not fighting) same sex marriage might be the “drink of water” Jesus told us to give those in need. Regardless of what any one person believes about homosexuality… Read more »
“…against God’s plan…” Once again I’m stumbling on a theological question. If God’s plan runs the universe, and God is omnipotent, and no one can thwart God’s power, then how could *anything* actually go against His plan? Everything that happens is part of God’s plan, or else God is not really in charge of everything. If I can do something that is against God’s plan, then that means that in this instance I am more powerful than God. That seems quite blasphemous. Surely nothing exists without God’s will for it to exist. So, all the apparently evil things you mention… Read more »
Here’s another straight Christian ally! I work and hope for one day where all LGBTQ relationships are given equality in the eyes of the law. Yet I’m biased, so let me name those biases: 1. I have a lot of LGBTQ friends and I know it’s not a choice for them, it’s who they are, so that skews my vision since I’m emotionally invested in their well-being. 2. I’m a pastor and I’m in the business of blessing unions. With more unions means more blessing which means more money for me, so I’m economically biased. 3. I know that the… Read more »
What if I told there was a study recently published that said the children of gay parents turn out to be gay themselves a higher percentage of the time than do children of heterosexual parents. If arguendo, homosexuality is genetically determined, in light of the fact the homosexuals constitute only 10% of the general population you have to conclude that as a genetic trait homosexuality is recessive. In the case of adopted children of homosexual couples, if it is genetically determined, you would only expect to find one out of every 10 adopted children of homosexual couples to be gay,… Read more »
This makes it sound like homosexuality is a bad thing. I disagree.
What if I asked you to CITE your sources? Then at least other individuals could actually see what you are talking about. Regardless of the nature vs nurture agreement the freedom in general is the issue here. Let’s break down your arguments shall we. First you state that you and not opposed civil unions that afford same sex couples all the responsibilities and benefits that a marriage includes (which they currently do not). Fine that’s all well and good, but then what is the point of distinguishing between marriage and a civil union? Also, if you are so familiar with… Read more »
“Nonetheless, the state is secular. This secular state allows you to practice freedom of religion among many other freedoms. Yet, in the same breath you would ask the state to allow you to practice your religion, but deny others rights because of what your religion says. Doesn’t make much sense for a secular state does it?”
Thank you so much for stating this. So many people don’t seem to understand this.
I would say “cite your sources” and then a heavy dose of skepticism would be involved because it sounds like a crock of B.S. Hetero-people have gay kids and gay couples have straight kids and there’s plenty of studies which prove the opposite.
You can start here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYMjXucTFaM
Here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X01916800
Here: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/27/9403.short
And here: http://www.morganclaypool.com/doi/abs/10.4199/C00064ED1V01Y201208DBR008?journalCode=dbr&&
And as for “..homosexuality may very well be a learned behavior that can be unlearned.”
you can check here for a mountain of peer-reviewed data which proves the statement above is complete bullocks: http://www.adulterc.org/applications/ClassifiedListingsManager/inc_classifiedlistingsmanager.asp?ItemID=1349&CategoryID=156
A blogging friend of mine recently conducted a straw poll and you can read the results here: http://thegaychristian.com/?p=959
I find this fascinating. Not only does it show that the “gay lifestyle” (usually a phrase that means “Wild, romping orgies. A distaste for relationships. No “real” commitments.”) is patently false, but in fact that it better describes the “heterosexual lifestyle.” Oops. Looks like the only threat to marriage is from the only people who can legally marry…. namely Heterosexuals.
I was just saying the other day that this site posts comments so long as the comments comply with the commenting policy. I just posted a comment that was completely within the commenting policy and yet it got deleted. Because I disagreed with the author? Only ideas that can withstand critical analysis are ideas that are worthy of consideration. Since my critical analysis of your assertions were deleted I take it that you don’t feel your ideas as expressed in this article are capable of withstanding critical analysis. :because we know it proves they are equal with heterosexuals. ” Homosexual… Read more »
The “state” is not the Catholic Church and thank whatever systems that be that it isn’t. These ideas of what marriage is are regressive and will fail, ultimately. They already have.
No the state is not the Catholic Church, but the author approached this topic from a religious or faith based perspective. The state has an interest in propagating the species any actions taken by the state to diminish that goal is contrary to the states interests. I was trying to point out the traditional Catholic perspective on this issue and the State’s interests on this issue.
Can a case for same-sex *civil marriage* be made from any religious perspective? The interests of society/the state are not the same as those of any Christian sect.
“The state has an interest in propagating the species….” So the federal government is a pronatalist institution? I’ve always wondered about that…. If the state has a fundamental interest in propagating the species, then it should be actively encouraging as much sex as possible, not buttressing a monogamous form of marriage. A promise of lifelong monogamy is hardly a great strategy for maximizing the birth rate. If the state’s interest was in reproduction, one would expect the state to be backing polygamy. Then again, restricting the teaching of sex ed in school and limiting birth control options for young people… Read more »
“Homosexual relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships because of one simple reason. They cannot create life. ”
-This invalidates every heterosexual relationship that either won’t or can’t create life. This includes grandma marrying her “special friend” in the nursing home some 20 years after becoming a widower. I think grandma and her special friend as well as Adam and Steve’s relationships deserve to be honored and give equality in the eyes of the law.
This invalidates every heterosexual relationship that either won’t or can’t create life. This includes grandma marrying her “special friend” in the nursing home some 20 years after becoming a widower. I think grandma and her special friend as well as Adam and Steve’s relationships deserve to be honored and give equality in the eyes of the law. Well, not quite. First of all many heterosexual couples marry not intending to have children initially and then find themselves pregnant, so while man proposes, God disposes. Believe it or not, it happens. Sarah, Abraham’s wife, was thought to be barren but found… Read more »
This is only a partial refutation of Luke’s point. Luke’s point was that if the right to marry is based on fertility, then a lot of hetero couples would also not have the right to marry. Your arguments refute some cases but not all of them. Some people are just infertile — should they never be allowed to get married? The use of the biblical example of Sarah is fraught with problems. For one thing, if we are to support all the forms of marriage portrayed in the Old Testament, then we will have to allow more than just the… Read more »
wello, thanks for posting ‘For a chart of many of the Old Testament forms of marriage’.
that is going in my bookmark
Crap, I can’t believe I did that. I said “sex” when what I was really talking about was PIV intercourse. Of course a fertile hetero couple can have sex without any chance of having a baby, if they have some kinds of sex but not others.
“Homosexual relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships because of one simple reason. They cannot create life.” In that case, before any person can get married, that person will need to demonstrate to a government agency that he or she is fertile. If marriage is solely about having babies, and that’s the only criteria, then that needs to be enforced. Every infertile couple should be banned from getting married, no matter what the sexual orientation. Anyone who’s married who becomes infertile should therefore have the marriage dissolved. A tubal ligation or vasectomy would be equivalent to a divorce. If fertility… Read more »
According to your logic, allowing homosexuals the right to marry will in turn cause heterosexuals to stop reproducing? Marriage does not guarantee pregnancy. The abundance of single parents and infertile couples is a testament to this fact, thus making your assertions critically flawed.
“It is unjust to segregate a section of God’s creation because we cannot grasp how they could love someone of the same gender. It is a social crucifixion! Where instead of Christ on the cross, we choose to nail equality to the dogwood and let it suffocate and die, and then cheer when it has taken its final breath. We’ll say: “WE WON, WE WON, THE HOMOSEXUALS DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY! MARRIAGE IS OURS! JOY BE TO GOD, WE KEPT WHAT WAS OURS!” Instead of sharing that which we know to be the deepest commitment we can make… Read more »
Far be it from me to speak for the author of this article, which nearly made me cry with joy to read a Christian finally expressing love and acceptance to our homosexual brothers and sisters, but I believe that everything said in the article could be referenced back to the “Love” chapter: 1 Corinthians 13. Also Matthew 22:36-40 in which Jesus tells us that the two greatest commandments are to love the Lord your God with all your being and to love your neighbor as yourself. And let’s be honest, each one of us wants the chance to marry the… Read more »
There it is again.
If you disagree, you “hate”. Bingo. Entire argument is disqualified.
“We want to refuse marriage to homosexuals not because they are different, but because we know it proves they are equal with heterosexuals. And if they are equal with heterosexuals, we’ll be afraid to ask, ‘What if being gay isn’t a sin?’ and ‘If being gay isn’t a sin, what does that say about my entire paradigm of what I think about sin and what it means to love unconditionally?’ ” Thank you for not fearing to ask yourself — and speak aloud — the hard questions. Both my father and grandfather were Baptist ministers. I went to Baylor. I… Read more »
And for those who prefer to take the more reasoned and honset approach to this debate, a couple of brilliant videos in which the actual issue is discussed: http://www.theblaze.com/books/what-is-marriage-man-and-woman-a-defense/