Gay Christian Marriage: Now? Or Never?Part I

The conversation began here. Funky Dung ended his first response to me:

I don’t know what kind of response you were aiming for, so I hope I responded appropriately.

And I went on to answer highlighted points in his post:

It's much the kind of response I was hoping for.

Ambadoxtrous Annie,

Good one.

I have not advocated, nor would I ever advocate, inhumane treatment of gays.

The question is whether demanding celibacy of someone not called to be a priest isn't "inhumane." It is pretty easy, and not very charitable, for a heterosexual, from the fortunate heights of normalcy, to condemn a homosexual to that fate. I thought the post at Bending the Rule revealed a lot of sincere pain and struggle, rather than being "pleasant" and "anticlimactic." You're basically saying this guy cannot be sincerely religious if he wants to have earthly love. Imagine yourself sentenced to celibacy unless you could reprogram your own orientation. Too easy, too, for a heterosexual to imagine that it would be easy to learn to love the other sex! :)

It's pretty ironic, considering the substantial number of homosexuals who've sought refuge from obligatory heterosexuality in the Catholic priesthood, and who somehow seemed to convince themselves that sex with adolescent boys wasn't "sex" because it wasn't with women. Don't tell me this began with the '60s counterculture -- a lot of the testimonies of the abused and seduced come from the '50s.

[T]here are countless examples of Christ loving the sinner but hating the sin, and homosexual activity is a sin. Indeed it is a grave sin.

I have never seen a passage of Scripture in which Jesus said anything about homosexuality. (That passage about "eunuchs" is incredibly cryptic. Anyone who says he or she is sure what that passage means is blowing smoke, IMnot-humble-enoughO.) St. Paul did. To the ambadoxtrous out here, that has to be taken in cultural context. Homosexual activity in Biblical times was pagan and promiscuous, even ritually so. The concept of a monogamous homosexual relationship is a new one, even though homosexuals have been quietly forming such bonds quite likely forever.

As you know, I tend to think Alan Stewart Carl, an Episcopalian, is right when he writes that "homosexuality is much more a cultural issue than a Biblical one. Using the Bible to declare homosexuality a 'sin' is just a trick to give a bigoted opinion moral weight." Tradition has been modified over and over again to incorporate new understandings (re: slavery and polygamy are the most common examples), and I suspect that's going to happen again in regard to gay monogamy and women priests, even if not in our lifetimes. We're now in the necessary struggle that precedes such a change. You are arguing in a sincere and theologically informed way against the change, and Christopher is arguing on the same level for it. That's why I hoped you would read his post.

(To be continued.)

IMPORTANT NOTE: Please, AmbivaBloggers, venture forth and comment on the posts at Ales Rarus, as well as here. Let's have the reciprocal courage to go defend our beliefs on hostile but civil turf.

Comments

[realpc]

"Homosexual activity in Biblical times was pagan and promiscuous, even ritually so."

YES!! The Old Testament condemned the ritual orgies of its pagan neighbors, maybe just to set itself apart as a different kind of religion. Yahwehism was patriarchal, while the pagans of the area worshipped fertility goddesses, as well as gods.

Homosexuality is barely mentioned in the Old Testament, along with mile-long lists of laws about everything down to what kind of threads to make your clothes out of. The punishment for homosexuality is the SAME as the punishment for a woman wearing men's clothes (death -- of course lots of things were punished by death).

As you say, Jesus NEVER MENTIONED homosexuality. He DID NOT CARE about it.

We don't know how the ancient Israelites felt about homosexuality, but I guess we know it was considered normal and natural in ancient Greece.

Homosexuality should NOT be a concern of Christians.

It is so absolutely ridiculous I can't believe it has become a central issue.

On the other hand, gays are just making it worse by demanding Christian marriage.

[Funky Dung]

"As you say, Jesus NEVER MENTIONED homosexuality. He DID NOT CARE about it."

I loathe the smell of broccoli and thus will not get near it, let alone eat it. That fact is probably not recorded on my blog. Should someone assume that my silence regarding broccoli (or anything else I dislike) means I don't care about it or even like it?

A lack of negative statement is not, de facto, a neutral or positive statement. To argue that Jesus didn't care about or approved of anything based on the fact that Scripture doesn't record His opinion on the matter is fallacious logic.

[amba]

Funky, we'll have to have a little talk about broccoli one of these days . . . I love it.

[realpc]

Come one Funky Dung, if homsexuality was considered a big deal in ancient times, it would have been included in the ten commandments! The prophets would have mentioned it, at least in passing. Jesus would have reminded his followers to stay out of gay bars.

The prophets made a tremendous big deal of the things they considered important. If they hated homosexuality, they would have said so, and you know it darn well.

And anyway, what the prophets and Jesus thought is not exactly relevant to our modern world. A very good bilbical case can be made for slavery and polygyny. But we ignore it, because it does not fit our society's contemporary values.

Jesus DID NOT HATE homosexuality.

And the things Jesus really did hate -- like materialism -- are utterly and completely ignored by the political Christians. Materialism is an important American value, so you let it slip right by. Sure, go ahead and buy stuff, you can still go to heaven. Well no, you can't.

So stop worrying about gays! You are looking at them because you don't want to look at yourself. There are no real Christians anymore (if there ever were).

And by the way, I DO NOT think we should practice real Christianity. It's actually a life and nature-denying religion, as is Buddhism. I think the American religion -- a balance of mysticism and practical common sense -- sometimes actually makes sense.

[amba]

And the things Jesus really did hate -- like materialism -- are utterly and completely ignored by the political Christians.

Unusual to hear realpc sounding like a liberal!

Because Christianity, like Buddhism, is a religion that mistrusts the physical and natural world as an evil distraction from the transcendent, Jesus probably DID hate homosexuality -- and every other kind of sexuality. No, actually it's hard to put the word "hate" together with Jesus -- but let's say "strongly counseled against."

[realpc]

Jesus did not hate sexuality in general, amba.

And if you think I sounded like a liberal, you missed the whole point. If I criticize right-wing insanity, that does not in any way whatsoever imply that I agree with left-wing insanity. Why do I have to fit under one or another outdated irrelevant label?

[realpc]

Actually, I have no idea if Jesus hated sexuality or not. He was probably a celibate mystic, because sex diverts spiritual energy. Paul recommended celibacy but he soon realized it was impossible for most.

Anyway, Jesus and the prophets didn't talk about sex much at all, as far as I know. Our society is sex-obsessed, seeing things in the bible that just are not there.

[Funky Dung]

"Come one Funky Dung, if homsexuality was considered a big deal in ancient times,...[snip]

There's also the possibility that it was so plainly obvious that it's wrong that Israel didn't need to be reminded.

"And anyway, what the prophets and Jesus thought is not exactly relevant to our modern world."

That is an opinion, not an axiomatic fact.

"A very good bilbical case can be made for slavery"

I can't speak authoritatively on this matter, but the impression I've gotten is that the slavery practiced by the Israelites was very different from what was practiced in the 19th century.

Also, careful examination of Scripture shows a clear progression in what God demanded of His people. Lex talionis, for instance, was an improvement over the typical revenge sought at the time. To only take as much from an enemy as he'd taken from you was a lot better than slaughering a whole family or tribe in retribution for a single murder. When humanity was mature enough, God upped the ante and replaced "eye for an eye" with "turn the other cheek". If God tolerated slavery for a while, it does not mean that He always intended to.

..."and polygyny."

Tell that to Jesus. He was very clear in His statements about the sanctity of monogamous marriage.

"Jesus DID NOT HATE homosexuality."

Shouting it won't make it true. What theological arguments do you offer?

"And the things Jesus really did hate -- like materialism -- are utterly and completely ignored by the political Christians. Materialism is an important American value, so you let it slip right by. Sure, go ahead and buy stuff, you can still go to heaven. Well no, you can't."

1. This is a red herring.
2. Two wrongs don't make a right.
3. The Catholic Church condemns materialism.
4. Do you believe that I am a "political Christian" or support those who are?

"So stop worrying about gays! You are looking at them because you don't want to look at yourself."

I don't? Have you been spying on my spiritual direction sessions? Have you bugged the confessional?

"There are no real Christians anymore (if there ever were)."

What are the marks of a "real Christian"?

"And by the way, I DO NOT think we should practice real Christianity. It's actually a life and nature-denying religion"

How does Christianity deny life and/or nature?

"I think the American religion -- a balance of mysticism and practical common sense -- sometimes actually makes sense."

Syncretism, mushy sentimentalism, and empty platitudes make sense?

[Funky Dung]

"Because Christianity...is a religion that mistrusts the physical and natural world as an evil distraction from the transcendent, Jesus probably DID hate homosexuality -- and every other kind of sexuality."

Actually, that's completely untrue. Those sects that declared physicality evil were declared heretical a very long time ago (c.f. Gnosticism). The Church actually holds nature, and the human body in particular, in very high regard. Reading what the Church has to say about the Incarnation makes that very clear.

Bodily needs and desires can indeed distract from spiritual pursuits, and various forms of mortifying the flesh have always been around, but ordering one's passions and physical nature is not the same as rejecting them.

[realpc]

"He was very clear in His statements about the sanctity of monogamous marriage."

Are you kidding me? It was a polygynous culture!!!!

[realpc]

"There's also the possibility that it was so plainly obvious that it's wrong that Israel didn't need to be reminded."

You're nuts. They had a commandment against murder -- isn't that obviously wrong?

[Janet]

Oy vay, indeed! All these years of being a Christian and I somehow missed the fact I was supposed to mistrust the physical and natural world.

Must have been all that Bible reading that messed me up. I somehow got the impression that it was the misapplication of certain physical urges that was the problem, not having them in the first place. And that animals were to be treated with kindness and that the natural world was a stewardship that should be handled with responsibility.

What would I do without you guys to enlighten me?

Sorry, not meaning to be nasty, but sometimes sheer astonishment sort of knocks me off my bearings.

[Funky Dung]

"Are you kidding me? It was a polygynous culture!!!!"

Apparently Jews were more commonly monogamous by the time of Jesus' ministry. There are numerous references in the gospels to spouses in the singular. In fact, several passages make no sense whatsoever in polygynous situtations. Jesus taught that men and women - one man with one woman - should become one flesh as they did "in the beginning". A fuller explanation of this can be found in John Paul II's Theology of the Body.

[Tom Strong]

FD,

Also, careful examination of Scripture shows a clear progression in what God demanded of His people.

and

but ordering one's passions and physical nature is not the same as rejecting them.

You're setting up your own loss here, buddy.

[amba]

Bingo!

[Funky Dung]

"You're setting up your own loss here, buddy."

Sexual desire is not inherently sinful. However, disordered desire, if acted upon, is. Sexual desire for animals, children, corpses, and the same sex are all disordered.

[Funky Dung]

"but ordering one's passions and physical nature is not the same as rejecting them."

clarification: Rejecting/reordering the state of one's physical nature is not the same as rejecting physicality itself as evil. Homosexual desire is disorderd sexual desire. Sexual desire is not inherently disordered. Homosexual desire is inherently disordered, but not inherently sinful. Willful acceptance acceptance of homosexual desire (as ordered) and homosexual acts are sinful.

[realpc]

The word of God, straight from FD's keyboard. How could we ever doubt?