I always wonder about people who cite Jesus or Christianity as a defense for their prejudices. I don't recall Jesus saying anything at all about consensual homosexuality. I do recall him telling people to love their neighbors and to not be judgmental
( ... )
Puts on Biblical Scholar Hat...meryt_sekhmetJune 6 2006, 15:30:04 UTC
See, the problem is, marriage isn't necessarily about love. It's about the joining of two souls before God, in a union of bodies that is intended to bring about new generations. That's really the problem here. Romantic love is not the point of the marriages of the Bible; legitimate children are. There are many Christians who see any physical union that is not intended to procreate as amoral. Gay unions, regardless of high lofty emotions, are therefore very much against the entire purpose of marriage. Pro- and Anti-Gay activists are speaking completely different languages, it seems. 'Marriage' has only recently come to be focused on romantic love
( ... )
This is a hard onesmile4kasJune 6 2006, 17:11:07 UTC
I think there's so much to say about this subject...I'm just not sure it should be said in the political arena. I want people to see Jesus for who He is and I fear that in debates like this, He gets lost.
Re: This is a hard oneflyinhomeJune 6 2006, 21:03:07 UTC
Well, if we're talking about what Jesus would have said about it, I certainly agree that it shouldn't be a political debate. I don't think one can really understand what Jesus said, or would have said, without listening to one's heart.
On the other hand, if we're talking about whether to legalize gay marriage, that's an inherently political discussion. And yes, Jesus does get lost in that debate - but frankly I don't see how Jesus or Christianity enters into that discussion much. We shouldn't be using arguments from any belief system to justify laws that bind people who don't share that belief system.
If Christianity provides wisdom or insight about what is good for society, and that wisdom or insight can be conveyed to others via non-religious arguments, that's fine. But it doesn't work to expect other people to take such matters on faith, or to be bound by matters of faith, if they don't share that faith.
Here's my thing: regardless of whether Christianity should support homosexuality, we don't live in a Christian nation. We live in a country where we teach our children that the government is secular, and people are free to choose their religions, and no one gets to force beleifs on other religious groups. To make an ammendment based purely on religious beliefs is blatantly disgregarding the spirit of our constitution. If two gays want to get married, they're not hurting anyone else- it's not like murder, which is nonconsentual. The only reason not to allow for gay marriage is religous. So... I'd say tough stuff. But, I'm afraid I might be in a minority here. Gah. -m.
If you're in that minority, you're not alone. I am baffled as to why our government can't honor marriage between two people of the same sex. From a legal perspective, marriage is a contract between two people, hence the idea of shared property and whatnot. It holds no requirement of love, or that the church be involved in that union whatsoever. The notion of banning it for religious reasons is absolutely ridiculous. Even the religious debate within churches is tricky, because there isn't a clear answer in a lot of respects, particularly because it deals with scriptural interpretation, and scarier than that, trying to determine God's will (I won't even touch that one). At any rate, glad the bill didn't even come close to passing in the Senate, and hopefully our government will get over itself, allow the marriages, and work on more important things - like lack of education, extreme poverty and hunger, oh yeah, and attacking Iraq for oil. On the church front, if I ever return to the blogging world hopefulyl I can post something about the
( ... )
Comments 7
Reply
Reply
Reply
On the other hand, if we're talking about whether to legalize gay marriage, that's an inherently political discussion. And yes, Jesus does get lost in that debate - but frankly I don't see how Jesus or Christianity enters into that discussion much. We shouldn't be using arguments from any belief system to justify laws that bind people who don't share that belief system.
If Christianity provides wisdom or insight about what is good for society, and that wisdom or insight can be conveyed to others via non-religious arguments, that's fine. But it doesn't work to expect other people to take such matters on faith, or to be bound by matters of faith, if they don't share that faith.
Reply
-m.
Reply
Reply
-m.
Reply
Leave a comment