President Jimmy Carter: "I believe Jesus would approve gay marriage," What do you think?

The Peace of God to all that belong to the Light,
Dear Readers,

It comes to my attention the words of President James E. Carter in an interview given to the media this week, in which the former State head , who is an extremely active member of the Baptist Church in Georgia, is saying the following words"

"Jesus would encourage any love affair if it was honest and sincere and was not damaging to anyone else, and I don't see that gay marriage damages anyone else," President Jimmy Carter said in a HuffPost Live interview with Marc Lamont Hill published Tuesday.
"I believe Jesus would approve gay marriage," he said. "That's just my own personal opinion."

I think the so open opinion of a Politician that has distinguished his career since even before to be President for his unique way to conciliate separation in between Churches and State and a so active role in his own religious congregation as preacher every weekend in the Sunday school offered in Atlanta by the Baptist Church is really interesting and inviting to reflect about this so controversial topic from a non fanatic perspective, trying to find the middle point of balance to moderate a discussion that has divided so much the world and the nation in the last years.

What are the facts here:

First at all, few weeks ago the Supreme Court of the United States has officially determined that the Civil same gender marriage is valid in all the country in spite of the bans that existed in some states against it. The decision is founded in the Civil rights laws and the Bill of Rights. Now, America is one of the most recent countries to join to a world trend that in moving around the world at impressive pace.

So in order to propose an impartial and objective meditation in the topic, let me try to analyze some important aspects to consider:

1) What the supreme court has approved is the legality of a civil union , so a contract of community of goods in between two people in spite of their gender, two persons that decided to share their future together living under the same roof and sharing intimacy and affection. This decision is not substituting at all the religious marriage, that is the one that is a sacrament or a rite by the Churches, and also the decision is not trying invalidate the right of the religions to marriage people or to force them to offer marriage to same gender couples.

2) The legal frame of the same gender civil marriage it is not explicit in what corresponds to sexual duties of the spouses in this kind of union. As a matter of fact it is extremely vague in sexual roles, even open the space for asexual cohabitation in between Partners. It seems that the definition of civil marriage refers to intimacy in general and mutual affection but their scope is not clearly defined , so we can assume that the law in general is just talking about free will for association based in mutual love in between partners.

3) The prohibition of Leviticus is used by conservatives to condemn same gender unions linking it with Homosexuality as a sin, However, here we must recognize that there is no universal definition about what is sexuality. In an ample sense sexuality is not just only coital activity, but any kind of sensual expression in between two persons. Leviticus is clearly against exclusively to sodomy , although there is also the debate that it can cover specially ritual prostitution, but it is not clear that goes against all kind of affection or love that can emerge in between people of the same gender. If by homosexual behavior we refer to intercourse well Leviticus can be applied, but it does not seem the same when we talk about other physical expressions of love that two persons of the same gender can have: kissing, petting, to hug, to touch.

4) Is all the people really called by God to enter in the traditional definition of marriage or not? I think in this point there is a lot of awareness along centuries that it is practical impossible to have the entire society involved in marital life, many people for different reasons can't marry a person of the opposite gender or simply do not have the vocation to make a traditional family. if it is not the case what rights have the people that can't go in to that kind of Marriage? their only right is to live the rest of their lives in solitude or enter in a monastic order?

5) are the homosexuals already deprived of chance of salvation even if there is scientific evidence that they have a natural attraction for the same gender? so what is the meaning of the following words of Jesus?

St Matthey 19, 10 The disciples said to Him, "If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry." 11But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. 12"For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."

6) What happened with a minority in the diversity spectrum that usually few people talk about, the so called Asexuals , people that is not naturally sexually attracted by anybody? what happened if some of them accept the same gender marriage as a way to look of companion of somebody, in terms that are strictly of affection? This is a possibility that the ones that oppose same gender marriage even don't consider, and makes evident a so clear contradiction in the argument that Same Gender civil unions means necessarily homosexual unions.

7) what is Adelphopoiesis? This was a kind of brotherhood or same gender Sacramental union sealed by a blessing of a priest that existed in the ancient Christian communities and was preserved modern times by the Catholic church until the XIV century and also by the Eastern Orthodox church until the XVIII century. Is this the answer of religion to the people that are in search of same gender socially and religiously accepted bond? Why it was supressed? why a religious rite that existed in the tradition of the church was erased in modern times? was that decision possible moved by an anti same gender attitude in the religious organizations, in the churches?


8) What if the wave of same gender unions is a natural response in sexual or affective behavior to the human overpopulation of the planet? can the earth continue supporting a population growing at the rates of the XX century? what could happen if we continue the trend of 1 billion at 1800, 2 Billion at 1920s, 3 billion at 1960, 4 billion at middle 1970s, 5 billion at end of 1980s, 6 billion at the change of millennium and more than 7 billon right now? is the demographic growing correlated with increase in frequency of broken marriages and families, abandoned children, grave recessions, violence, criminality and wars everywhere?

This is a thread for a serious compassive reflection on the topic not to assume judgmental positions that in my opinion correspond only to God decide to assume or not. I am going to remain neutral among the different thesis or opinions and with a lot of open mind.

Thanks for your attention,

The Angel of Lightness

For the few parts i have read aBout how jesus wanted us to be, im sure he would have been open to same sex mariages, he seemed for me to be a champion of equality for all.

Thats just my opinion do.

Jesus, as the Creator, would not approve a relationship outside of His design, that is to say, to produce children and perpetuate the species. He designed us for a function and a purpose. Jimmy lies again.

I'm sure he would have approved of all types of true love and harmony, including LGBTQ couples. Love is love.

Who cares already, can't you just let this alone? Stop trolling for flags and nonsense and let something that warrants debate take precedence.

originally posted by: notmyrealname
Who cares already, can't you just let this alone? Stop trolling for flags and nonsense and let something that warrants debate take precedence.

I agree.

It is a completely moot point in the US now.

It doesn't matter anymore.

The Supreme Court trumps the Bible in the US.

The Supreme Court trumps the Koran in the US.

The Supreme Court trumps the Torah in the US.

Discussion at this point - a thread at this point
is only done to cause more hatred between people
to stir up more bad feelings between groups
to make people angry and hostile towards one another.

There is no point except to cause problems
hurt feelings, anger and emotional pain
between people.

The Supreme Court ruled, and that's that,
end of discussion,
end for the need for discussion.

It makes no difference to the US government
and to the practice of our everyday lives
and to what happens between people;
if God or Allah or Jesus approve or disapprove;
not one drop of difference;
The Supreme Court ruled and put an end to the discussion.

So let it lie, let it be
live and let live
in peace

a reply to: notmyrealname

Excuse me notmyrealname, but possibly you don't care about the topic, but it is certainly one of the major themes in the reality of the world right now, so it is quite relevant, ten years ago was possibly something that could be called hypothetic, fiction or speculaity but right now is a social reality.

Now, let me repeat again why I consider the words of President Carter extremely meaningful, without endorsing or attacking his personal opinion on the topic.

I think the so open opinion of a Politician that has distinguished his career since even before to be President for his unique way to conciliate separation in between Churches and State and a so active role in his own religious congregation as preacher every weekend in the Sunday school offered in Atlanta by the Baptist Church is really interesting and inviting to talk about this so controversial topic from a non fanatic perspective, trying to find the middle point of balance to moderate a discussion that has divided so much the world and the nation in the last years.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

originally posted by: The angel of light
a reply to: notmyrealname

Excuse me notmyrealname, but possibly you don't care about the topic, but it is certainly one of the major themes in the reality of the world right now, so it is quite relevant, ten years ago was possibly something that could be called hypothetic, fiction or speculaity but right now is a social reality.

....
The Angel of Lightness

In discussing this topic at a time when feelings are raw and fresh on both sides
only invites the Angel of Darkness in to gloat over:
1. the divisions, dissensions,
and hatred that have existed on both sides of the issue
2. to increase the intensity and to prolong the pain that both sides experienced

The Angel of Darkness rejoices at picking at fresh wounds, it gives her great joy.

The Supreme Court ruled
no one can change it
the ruling won't change
so what anyone in the US thinks about it
or what anyone in heaven thinks about it
(God, Jesus, Allah included)
doesn't matter at all.

The title of your OP and the main focus according to the title
is what Jesus thinks of gay marriage (sexual)
It is my contention that discussing it at this point is cruel
to many people who have raw and strong feelings on both
sides of the fence.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Well grandmakdw,

Your opinion is respectable but it is far to be objective, after all the decision of the Supreme court is on Same Gender Civil contractual Marriage, is not entering in the sphere of religious rites or Sacraments and also it is not explicitly a decission on Gay or Lesbian Marriage.

The Legal frame of the same gender marriage can be used by anybody that wants to have a home shared with another person of the same gender even if they never have any kind of sexual bond at all, it is a basically an agreement of cohabitation, and sharing of some kind of relationship.

Your opinion is based on the assumption that all human relationships among two people are based exclusively in sexual bonds, something that is wrong, after all there is love also in between sons or daughters and parents, or in between siblings, or among cousins or other relatives of the same family.

The decision of the Supreme court is opening a new space to create families or protect affective bonds in between people that was not previously covered by the Law, but that is all, anything else depend on the personal and private use or interpretation of this option that the couples, partners or associates give to it.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: The angel of light
I have interest in letting things that promote division and inequality quietly extinguish themselves. Spouting off what a has-been politician says as some form of justification is the epitome of foolishness. Everyone knows that a politician is lying when their lips move. Your comment is there simply to draw in those who vehemently oppose the ruling and start an argument.

If you are such an angel, try promoting happiness instead of hate.

I don't like every topic on ATS I even think some are worn out, but it is much easier to close the thread and move on than to complain to others that find it interesting.

originally posted by: grimpachi
I don't like every topic on ATS I even think some are worn out, but it is much easier to close the thread and move on than to complain to others that find it interesting.

I think it is legitimate to speak out and say if you find a particular thread
to be cruel and unnecessary
and only started to provoke anger, hatred, and dissension,
or to - worse yet - get flags and stars

This thread falls in that category, begun just to stir up
anger, and hard feelings,
over something that really doesn't matter anymore.
The issue in the US has been settled and
to pick at raw feelings for fun of a thread is cruel.

But as per your request, I will leave the thread and let
people attack each other,
hurt each other,
hate on each other,
be mean to each other,
and to generally make a fuss over nothing
because the issue was settled in the US
and what Jesus thinks is a useless and pointless question, designed specifically to enrage or cause massive conflict.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Dear grandmakdew,

It is curious and at the same time pretty contradictory that if you want to heal a situation you decide to ignore its existence or assume a huge judgmental position with respect to anybody that decides to break the silence to find a way to conciliate extreme positions.

I don't think President Carter is trying to agitate again a debate on the topic, to the contrary is showing the correct attitude from an ethical Christian perspective, first to don't express resentment about others decisions, second to try to call everybody to see the positive side of it, there is always to different ways to see any event in life, his is seeing respect for all kinds of Love in that decision.

Please try to understand that It is absurd that you come here just to simply start to call names to whoever is trying to open a space of dialog in between the parts that is right now extremely needed.

A Social or emotional injury can be only healed when there is awareness of it and courage to start to talk with mutual comprehension and respect and stop to attack, what you are doing is to decide to respond with an aggression or rudeness to an invitation to dialog, and forgiveness.

By the way to call names is extremely impolite, it is in the level of harrassment of others, it is also against any religious ethics at all, to distort the meaning of nicknames or avatars is a clear violation of the norms of decorum and good manners in any ATS forum, in spite of the evident bad social manners that they represent.

If you don't want to topic or you are not interested you are absolutely free to go into the next thread by the way, but not to insult the person that has opened this one.

Show your own high civility, or ethical or religious principles or values with your good manners and respect to others.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

originally posted by: The angel of light
a reply to: grandmakdw

It is curious and at the same time pretty contradictory that if you want to heal a situation you decide to ignore its existence or assume a huge judgmental position with respect to anybody that decides to break the silence and simply start to call names to whoever is trying to open a space of dialog in between the parts that is right now extremely needed.

A Social or emotional injury can be only healed when there is awareness of it and courage to start to talk with mutual comprehension and respect and stop to attack, what you are doing is to decide to respond with an aggression or rudeness to an invitation to dialog.

By the way to call names is extremely impolite, it is in the level of harrassment of others, it is also against any religious ethics at all, to distort the meaning of nicknames or avatars is a clear violation of the norms of decorum and good manners in any ATS forum, in spite of the evident bad social manners that they represent.

If you don't want to topic or you are not interested you are absolutely free to go into the next thread by the way, but not to insult the person that has opened this one.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

I did not call you a name. Or harass you.

The Angel of Darkness is Satan,
you referred to Jesus
I referred to the joy of Satan.

I will leave the thread now. But be aware I did not harass you or call you a name, I simply pointed out that this thread can have no positive outcome in my opinion. I've been on ATS far to long to even consider that a thread like this would create harmony. Watch and learn.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Excuse me grandmakdw,

Your way to explain attitudes is even worst than your so impulsive attitude to enter in a thread in the way you did, Do you think you are the only person here with brain, or even with good will ? I know perfectly how to detect negativity or a really insulting attack when i see it.

If you can behave well it is better that you move away from the thread, that is the only really fair idea you have expressed, few times in years posting in ATS I ever have said that to anybody else, but your reaction is so negative, I am sorry.

The thread was not created motivated with any cruelty, as you have clearly claimed, you have not only called names against me but also
putting feelings and intentions on my mind that only exist in your so poor judgement of my attitudes and motivations.


The Thread was opened to offer a space of dialog or meditation after the storm, something that is not only acceptable, but even extremely needed to heal society of the turmoil fanaticism of fundamentalism has created around this situation.

There is a lot of misunderstanding and also miscommunication among the two sides along the months this issue become a huge confrontation in the society, too much politicization of it. The Thread does not have a political approach to the topic, we are talking here about a concept of Jimmy Carter as a Preacher or Sunday school tutor of the Baptist church, a Christian Church.

I hope to be enough clear that only my deep respect for a statement of a so kind person , moreover a Nobel Peace Prize, that I believe is trying with his wisdom to enlighten us, to help the country to move on with optimism toward the future is what has motivated me to opened the thread.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

Would a Middle Eastern Arab Jew have approved of gay marriage 2000 years ago???

I'm gonna say... No.

I don't know, but if the Holy Father told him not to approve, then my guess is he would obey the Holy Father's wishes.

The Christian God is treated as personal, and as such, his views reflect those of those who believe in his existence. Sure their beliefs are shaped by ancient texts and modern dogmas. But in observation I find that while the faithful are molded somewhat by God, their personal view of God and what he would or would not approve of, is shaped by themselves.

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: notmyrealname
Who cares already, can't you just let this alone? Stop trolling for flags and nonsense and let something that warrants debate take precedence.

The Supreme Court trumps the Bible in the US.

The Supreme Court trumps the Koran in the US.

The Supreme Court trumps the Torah in the US.

That was the point of establishing the United States of America and the Constitution and therefore the Supreme Court. So no religion held authority over another or the people. Why is this so hard for people to grasp?

---

You go Jimmy. Be the voice of reason.

a reply to: The angel of light

Jesus said love everyone...not 'bed' everyone....