That was Paul’s take, anyway. Chosen by Jesus hisself? Well, that’s what Paul claimed, though Jesus had been gone for a while at the time, and one can’t really argue questions of faith such as that, can one? But I beg to be excused from arguing about Paul’s conversion, and his status as a Jesus surrogate in the Church. Sue me, I’m a heretical free-thinker.
Jesus did not speak to racism? Beg to differ. The Jews were a race unto themselves, and Christ said he was there to bring his message to the Jews, but Christ preached to and healed and helped those of other races as well. Did we miss the Samaritan, the Canaanite woman, the Syrophoenician child? Christ’s instructions to his apostles to spread the baptism to "all the nations" at a time when nation and race were much the same thing? I’d say that both word and example are clear there.
I repeat–you will find no mention of homosexuality in the Gospels. Nor do I have any more desire to live under Paulite law as expressed through a single passage in Romans than I do to live under Levitican law. What was that bit again in the Gospels, about rendering unto Ceaser? That should apply to Romans, right? ;-) Heck, I coveted just the other day, and lusted in my heart, and I whispered last week, and I sure don’t want to be put to death for it.
In short, Biblical morality plays are not the basis for American civil law, and differing interpretations of condemnations in the Bible are not a legal basis for making American civl law. Romans 1:26 is indeed vague as a singularly clear-cut condemnation of homosexuality per se when read in context, and it’s the most explicit reference of the few in the NT.
To what purpose does any civil government sanction any marriage. What the greater societal good they’re trying to encourage
Societal stability and the civilizing of children–but those are not totally interdependent functions. It’s also bound up with the preservation of property and bloodline, which also goes back to stability. We are very competitive animals–marriage regulates the competition. The competition for sex is one of the most destructive forces known to the human race, whether it results in reproduction or not. While other forms also work, the two-parent family has been the most stable basis for raising and civilizing children while simultaneously keeping adults from the worst and most destructive unbridled sexual competition, and research indicates that the gender mix of the parents is not a factor. It’s the stability of the family itself.
While I agree with John that there are good reasons to get government out of marriage, I don’t believe it’s possible to get government entirely out of the marriage business. At minimum, court enforcement of marital contract is required. For example, John says "If people want all the legal protections of marriage, they can just draw up a legal contract and wills to reflect that."
That would be fine (I’ll repeat, I think that consenting adults should be free to make their own private arrangements) except that over the centuries society has determined that its own interests require certain marital rights be a part of that contract. In today’s world, the effect of the marital contract extends in law to affect and obligate others not party to the contract. To go "private" we would have to address that. Private contract simply does not cover all that–for example, how do we treat spousal benefits provided by the public under legal mandate, such as SS? How do we re-write law of inheritance?
And going just from spousal contract to the question of children, there is ALWAYS a societal interest in the treatment of minor children, and minor children ALWAYS have a rightful legal interest in their parents, and NO capacity to contract. The state must enforce their rights for them in some fashion. So taking marriage "private" is simple in concept, but extremely involved in practice, especially where children are involved.
]]>Someone needs to go back to Bible school. The references might be few, but they are there , and they are not vague. Paul’s letter in Romans 1:27 is pretty darn explicit:
the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
True, Christ himself never spoke about homosexuality, but there are a lot of subjects he didn’t talk about directly. Racism is one; does that mean racism is OK then? Also, keep in mind that Paul was directly chosen by Christ to spread his message.
Now having said all that, it certainly wasn’t the most important topic in the New Testament, so it should be kept in perspective.
]]>No on a separate matter, I’ve asked this before on several blogs but I get no clear answer. To what purpose does any civil government sanction any marriage. What the greater societal good they’re trying to encourage (I assume its not healthcare benefits for one of the couple or death benefits). Is is procreation? Is it family? Is it economic stability? Certainly its not "fairness" because that seems to buy into the traditional view of "what a marriage is" and then declare that’s not fair? Help me out here?
]]>How is that any different than God creating some people without arms and legs, or with painful deformities, blindness, etc? I’m sure as a nonbeliever, the response to that would be "a loving God in my mind couldn’t do that" but that’s not how believers see it. So if a believer accepts that God has reasons for these that we don’t understand- as well as some that we can understand, because suffering does have meaning-then there’s no logical disconnect in assuming that He created us to have various kinds of ‘crosses to bear’.
Isn’t abstaining from gay sex in order to get to heaven just as legalistic as abstaining from pork and shellfish in order to get to heaven?
No. I’m not sure how to explain that, but I don’t see sexual morality in a legalistic way at all. That’s why I went into the theology of the body a bit- to explain that that’s a basic understanding of how we feel we’re called to order our lives according to what we believe God’s intent is for us, and to accept His gift of sexuality in the manner in which we believe He intends it. That’s nothing like the dietary laws of the OT- which were intended to purify and make sacrifice to God because there was no other way to approach Him due to our sinful nature.
]]>Isn’t abstaining from gay sex in order to get to heaven just as legalistic as abstaining from pork and shellfish in order to get to heaven?
Also, I don’t see any mention of a ban on homoseual acts in the New Testament. It’s quite clearly an Old Testament thing. I’d say either Jesus did away with the Old law, or he didn’t. And if he did only away with part of it, there should be a clear criterion to know which old laws still apply. Otherwise it gets completely subjective. Basically, right wing Christians have an emotional bias against homosexuality. And they bring up Old Testament quotes to justify that, although they believe Jesus did away with the law.
]]>Homosexual relations (at least between men; women are never explicitly mentioned, so they might have a loophole) are condemned in both the Old and New Testaments.
And yet they are mentioned not at all in the Gospels, and the Paulite NT references are somewhat vague and few. Most "Biblical" condemnation of homosexuality falls back to the harsher parts of the OT, such as Leviticus. I for one have zero desire to live under Levitican law, and I’m pretty sure I speak for a majority of America in that.
]]>With homosexuality, it can’t and won’t ever change.
So why the hell would god create people Gay? What kind of messed up joke is it for you to be born with desires that are by definition sinful and unable to feel attraction for the "correct" gender? Why would a good god "punish" someone to that much suffering? "God has a different plan for you" seems like a really poor way of justifying the fact that your path is, by definition, much harder than the path of anyone else from birth (though of course that could also be said for people born without arms or legs, but though incredibly cruel, it doesn’t actually make you more likely to sin in the Catholic sense).
I should note that I’m not going to entertain the notion that all homosexuals are simply "choosing" to be gay because of "vice". There seems to be some abundant evidence that most, if not all, gays have absolutely no choice in the matter. If we can’t agree on that then just strike the question above, since we’d be unable to actually have a conversation on the matter, since assuming people "choose to be gay" essentially negates the existence of gays, turning the matter into heterosexuals and heterosexuals that have sex with people of their own gender.
]]>No, because the sterility itself is in some way part of God’s design- either it’s a biological fact that He could reverse at any time He wishes (I happen to be in a circumstance where I’ve assumed that is always possible- having tried and failed to conceive over a number of years, and consider that as a couple we’re biologically infertile for reasons that doctors haven’t been able to determine- yet I did in fact then conceive shortly after we adopted my son and then miscarried.) So there’s still that ‘openness’, even in an infertile couple, knowing that God is the one who decides whether or not the infertility is permanent.
With homosexuality, it can’t and won’t ever change. Subtle difference, I guess, if you aren’t looking at it through the lens of accepting that God did create us as two separate genders.
On the feminism stuff, I guess I don’t think you’re representing the history that accurately either, because the Church hasn’t been a voice for oppression of females (as Pat points out- a lot of that overlapped with prominence of Catholic/Christian belief but the origins of the anti-feminist part were more cultural- for instance, females had to be virgins for clarity in lineage.) In many ways, the Church has been pretty pro-feminism for its time in all ages (and without a doubt, Christ was)- except that modern feminism has embraced the sexual revolution and espouses a rejection of gender roles so it feels that the Church hasn’t changed with the times today.