Christians FOR Gay Marriage... they are and always have been

First, my congratulations and brightest blessings to the people who have fought so long and hard for the same marriage rights for ALL. It's always a good time to love.... (and my sympathies for the marriage tax penalties...)

While the Christians who oppose gay marriage are given virtually all of the attention in this debate, they are not representative of all Christians. There are many Christian denominations - and non-denominationals -- who can and do provide their services for gay weddings; including the United Church of Christ, the Episcopalian Church, some Luthern churches, and most recently the Presbyterian Church (per Time Magazine. The GLAD Alliance will not only help you find a gay affirming church, they have information to help you start your own gay affirming church. Wikipedia has a list of LGBT-affirming Christian denominations, as well as a List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality

To justify it in terms of Jesus and His teachings, where else can one begin EXCEPT with the one and only COMMANDMENT he gave us:

"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

John 13:34

In other words, Jesus is all about the love. First and foremost. In fact, Jesus then took it one step further and pretty much made that love for one another thing an absolute MUST -- if you want to be a Christian anyway!

"By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."

Was Jesus talking about gay marriage? Maybe -- in a general way -- but I can't speak for Jesus. Specifically? Obviously not. But love is love. I will err on the side of caution... and love... and Jesus. Somehow, I have to think that Jesus has bigger problems with hateful and cruel behavior in heterosexual (and gay) marriage, than with two people of the same gender pledging their love and lives to each other... especially if they are indeed loving and good to each other.

The closest scriptures I know of in which Jesus directly addresses gays and marriage are brief, cryptic, and seem incomplete to me; after the Pharisees ask Jesus a trick question about divorce --

The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” (Matthew 19:10-12)

I do believe that Jesus was including gays as eunuchs -- "born that way" -- and in light of the Hebrew laws and customs of the time, which demanded men marry and produce children, that Jesus was telling them that gay men should not be required to marry women. I do not think He was condemning homosexuality in any way; He must also have realized that it would be difficult for these men of faith to accept. I also believe there was much more to that discussion than we are told.... (I should say that I think I read this interpretation somewhere before, maybe in the book "The Gospel of Light" (???). In any case, I don't think I thought of this myself!)

Also, Jesus told us to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." ((Mark 12:17)) Our law of the land (our "Caesar") demands due process and equal application of the law, including freedom of religion, and all the civil rights and benefits afforded to married folks under the law. As long as no one is forced to participate in a marriage that is against their faith, all marriages -- with or without benefit of clergy, hetero or gay, inter-racial or inter-denominational, and yes, including gay marriages -- must be treated equally under the law. If one cannot do so, then perhaps one should be questioning the law and the unequal benefits therein and put those efforts towards ending government involvement in marriage... but not trying to force one's will on another, especially in matters of faith and conscience. God can -- and will -- figure out the rest for Himself.

Finally, there is a precedent in the early church -- those closest to Jesus and His teachings. /and we do KNOW there were gay marriages in the early centuries of Christianity, because --

Same-sex marriage was outlawed on December 16, 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law specifically outlaws marriages between men and reads as follows:

When a man “marries” in the manner of a woman, a “woman” about to renounce men, what does he wish, when sex has lost its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed into another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment. (Theodosian Code 9.7.3)

Source: Wikipedia

One such gay wedding ceremony practiced in the early church is Adelphopoiesis, literally translated "brother making."

Such ceremonies can be found in the history of the Catholic Church up until the 14th century and in the Eastern Orthodox Church up until the 18th century. Documented in Byzantine manuscripts from the ninth to the fifteenth centuries, prayers established participants as "'spiritual brothers' (pneumatikous adelphous) and contained references to sainted pairs, including most notably SS Sergius and Bacchus, who were famous for their friendship."

And there is this:

In late medieval France, it is possible the practice of entering a legal contract of "enbrotherment" (affrèrement) provided a vehicle for civil unions between unrelated male adults who pledged to live together sharing ‘un pain, un vin, et une bourse’ – one bread, one wine, and one purse. This legal category may represent one of the earliest forms of sanctioned same-sex unions

I suspect such practices were among the heresies found unacceptable and subject to the cruel and murderous Inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church during the middle ages and well into the Renaissance Age -- aka "the burning times". An evil and very un-Christian example of Christians (in name only?) being oppressive, abusive, and even murderous, to other Christians who don't think and act according to their will.

Bottom line: When my judgment day comes, IF this is a problem, I would much rather explain why I chose love and God-given free will over fighting and hating.

Please note: I'm not looking to change anyone's mind or prove anything... nor do I want or expect any kudos (though I expect much disdain!)... and I fully expect that this will be one of my least favored posts...

I just want to give a different perspective -- all mine, I speak for no one but me -- and if perhaps I inspire someone to look at the issue with new eyes, cool... if I can actually shatter a few paradigms, great! We all need to look at our old problems with new eyes.

Anywhoo, it just is what it is.

Good old Ben & Jerry's!

Ben & Jerry's celebrates gay marriage vote in its own, unique way

Company renames one of its best-selling ice creams, as Apple boss Tim Cook hails a 'victory for equality, perseverance and love'

It's called "I Dough, I Dough." Cute.

a reply to: Boadicea This is a well-researched and thoroughly enjoyable post.

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: Boadicea This is a well-researched and thoroughly enjoyable post.

Thank you! I'm glad you appreciated it.

Please explain then why Jesus only taught on marriage as in the context of man and woman.

Understand also that in the Greek and Hebrew there are many more words for love. Agape is not to be understood as romantic love. Agape is the kind of love Jesus instructed us to have for one another, and that kind of love is never wrong. To attempt to use agape to justify romantic love is a fallacy and one made far too often today. They should not be conflated.

A eunuch and homosexual are two different things. Very, very different. I believe there was a long thread about it here not too long ago where another member attempted to use the teachings on eunuchs to justify homosexuality.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Please explain then why Jesus only taught on marriage as in the context of man and woman.

IF He did so, I would say because it was the law and custom of the Jews at the time for ALL men to marry women, so that was the context in which he had to address the issue of marriage... or perhaps He did but it was not recorded... or perhaps it was recorded but edited out (such as The Secret Gospel of Mark)... And, of course, I've already made it clear that I believe Jesus did not teach ONLY on marriage in the context of man and woman.

Understand also that in the Greek and Hebrew there are many more words for love. Agape is not to be understood as romantic love. Agape is the kind of love Jesus instructed us to have for one another, and that kind of love is never wrong. To attempt to use agape to justify romantic love is a fallacy and one made far too often today. They should not be conflated.

I do understand there are various words for different types of love... but in the final analysis, love is love. Jesus did not make a distinction and neither will I, especially in terms of dictating to others what love is acceptable or not.

A eunuch and homosexual are two different things. Very, very different. I believe there was a long thread about it here not too long ago where another member attempted to use the teachings on eunuchs to justify homosexuality.

First, I'm not trying to justify homosexuality. IF it is a sin, it is not a sin against me, and not my place to judge nor justify.

And, actually, there are conflicting opinions among scholars on whether or not a homosexual was considered a eunuch. The truth is that no one knows definitively. We only know conclusively that the term "eunuch" comprises varying definitions. As I made clear, I believe Jesus was including homosexuals. You of course are welcome to believe different, but neither of us knows for a fact.

a reply to: Boadicea

Jesus was teaching in the Roman Empire where homosexuality was very tolerated and sexual licentiousness was the rule of the day. If God intended for marriage and the Gospels to be understood that way, He would have taught things in that manner as He knew even then that they must be carried out into the world. However, as He set things in the beginning, He intended them to be in Christ's day, and that is how marriage is taught by Christ.

Love is not love. If it were, you would think nothing of having sex with your parents and your children and any and everyone else whom you love. There are very much different types of love which is why different words were used. Agape is the word used for the type of love Christ felt for everyone and which we should feel for everyone, not romantic love. Romantic love has its place, but it is inappropriate to try to inject it into teachings where it would make the world one humongous orgy because it suits your beliefs.

Try this one for size: Make two lists. One list is for the names of the people you love. The other list is for the names of the people you want to have sex with/feel attraction for. Then go back a see how many names the two lists have in common. There won't be very many. Then come back and explain to me how "love is love."

And, if you decide to believe that eunuch was for homosexuals, then Christ was also clear that eunuch can be made that way. You cannot neatly absolve homosexuals of their practices by saying they are born that way, justify homosexuality by saying that eunuchs are homosexuals, and ignore that Christ also made plain that not all eunuchs are born that way. There is a logical problem there, and you can't fix it by saying that some eunuchs are born homosexuals and some are true eunuchs who were castrated. Either it applies to eunuchs or it doesn't or some homosexuals are not born that way which flies in the face of what we are told today to justify all of this uprooting of millienia of tradition.

Also, no one sins against you. You are not God. Sin is against God when you do not walk in his way and will.

This is refreshing... thank you.. i know many Religious people get grouped into one category, but i know that many religious people are ok with not only the GLBTQ umbrella but are supportive in our quest for equality.

So thank you

originally posted by: ketsuko

And, if you decide to believe that eunuch was for homosexuals, then Christ was also clear that eunuch can be made that way. You cannot neatly absolve homosexuals of their practices by saying they are born that way, justify homosexuality by saying that eunuchs are homosexuals, and ignore that Christ also made plain that not all eunuchs are born that way. There is a logical problem there, and you can't fix it by saying that some eunuchs are born homosexuals and some are true eunuchs who were castrated. Either it applies to eunuchs or it doesn't or some homosexuals are not born that way which flies in the face of what we are told today to justify all of this uprooting of millienia of tradition.

Why couldn't the term just mean a man who doesn't have sex with women? There are different reasons why a man would not have sex with women:

A. He has decided to be celibate

B. He was castrated

C. He was born a homosexual

a reply to: Boadicea

Yup, there are plenty of Christians who support gay people and gay marriages.

There are many many churches here in Canada that have been happily marrying same sex couples for the past ten years (by their own choice of course) because they fully support the idea of two people loving one another and committing their lives to each other under the eyes of god.

It's a beautiful thing.


"Imagine all the people living life in peace. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope some day you will join us, and the world will live as one." ~ John Lennon

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Boadicea

Jesus was teaching in the Roman Empire where homosexuality was very tolerated and sexual licentiousness was the rule of the day. If God intended for marriage and the Gospels to be understood that way, He would have taught things in that manner as He knew even then that they must be carried out into the world. However, as He set things in the beginning, He intended them to be in Christ's day, and that is how marriage is taught by Christ.

Love is not love. If it were, you would think nothing of having sex with your parents and your children and any and everyone else whom you love. There are very much different types of love which is why different words were used. Agape is the word used for the type of love Christ felt for everyone and which we should feel for everyone, not romantic love. Romantic love has its place, but it is inappropriate to try to inject it into teachings where it would make the world one humongous orgy because it suits your beliefs.

Try this one for size: Make two lists. One list is for the names of the people you love. The other list is for the names of the people you want to have sex with/feel attraction for. Then go back a see how many names the two lists have in common. There won't be very many. Then come back and explain to me how "love is love."

And, if you decide to believe that eunuch was for homosexuals, then Christ was also clear that eunuch can be made that way. You cannot neatly absolve homosexuals of their practices by saying they are born that way, justify homosexuality by saying that eunuchs are homosexuals, and ignore that Christ also made plain that not all eunuchs are born that way. There is a logical problem there, and you can't fix it by saying that some eunuchs are born homosexuals and some are true eunuchs who were castrated. Either it applies to eunuchs or it doesn't or some homosexuals are not born that way which flies in the face of what we are told today to justify all of this uprooting of millienia of tradition.

Also, no one sins against you. You are not God. Sin is against God when you do not walk in his way and will.

Ketsuko

You know that people often equate lust with love. They think everything that is lustful is love, and they are told everything that is lust is love.

If Jesus went so far as to tell me that even if they look upon a woman with.......wait for it..LUST in their hearts, they have committed adultery already.

See, that's what Jesus said, and they invoke Jesus to justify what they want, but Jesus said "For THIS cause shall a man leave his mother and father and cleave unto his WIFE and they shall become one flesh".

As Jesus indicates, becoming one flesh (echad) can only happen between a man and a woman, then Jesus could not promote gay marriage, because it does not make the couple echad. Jesus also never went against the law of Moses, and then He went on to say that not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from the law till all these things be fulfilled.

Therefore, because Jesus said that the LAW of Moses stands until everything has been fulfilled, Jesus could not endorse gay marriage.

Maybe it's another Jesus they are thinking of. Love thy neighbor doesn't mean to have sex with him, but some people get that confused.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I know. You know. Scripture knows.

But they will do what they feel they must.

It's not for me to stand in their way, only to speak out which is what I think we were also enjoined to do.

a reply to: ketsuko

Please explain then why Jesus only taught on marriage as in the context of man and woman.

Because....he, supposedly, was answering a question about a man putting away his wife in divorce. He wasn't addressing "gay" commitments to each other.

Matthew 19:3
The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

Sin is against God when you do not walk in his way and will.

Divorce is sin. Remarrying after divorce is sin. Why aren't there a bunch of threads about Christian condemnation on divorce?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Boadicea

Jesus was teaching in the Roman Empire where homosexuality was very tolerated and sexual licentiousness was the rule of the day. If God intended for marriage and the Gospels to be understood that way, He would have taught things in that manner as He knew even then that they must be carried out into the world. However, as He set things in the beginning, He intended them to be in Christ's day, and that is how marriage is taught by Christ.

Maybe. Maybe not. But we both know that is your faith and belief... neither one of us nor anyone else can speak for God and Jesus. We can only do our best to understand and live our lives accordingly. And what God does not compel others to do, neither do we have the wisdom or authority to do so.

Love is not love. If it were, you would think nothing of having sex with your parents and your children and any and everyone else whom you love.

I would say you are confusing love with lust. And after 30+ years of marriage, I know that lust is a very poor foundation for a marriage, even worse for raising a family, and that within any long-term relationship, that love grows and evolves on many levels. But the fundamentals are always the same: Being good to others... doing what is right by them... wanting what is best for them...

Romantic love has its place, but it is inappropriate to try to inject it into teachings where it would make the world one humongous orgy because it suits your beliefs.

I have no idea where that came from! Obviously.

Try this one for size: Make two lists. One list is for the names of the people you love. The other list is for the names of the people you want to have sex with/feel attraction for. Then go back a see how many names the two lists have in common. There won't be very many. Then come back and explain to me how "love is love."

One can lust without love... one can love without lust.... and one can find both in one person...

And, if you decide to believe that eunuch was for homosexuals, then Christ was also clear that eunuch can be made that way. You cannot neatly absolve homosexuals of their practices by saying they are born that way, justify homosexuality by saying that eunuchs are homosexuals, and ignore that Christ also made plain that not all eunuchs are born that way. There is a logical problem there, and you can't fix it by saying that some eunuchs are born homosexuals and some are true eunuchs who were castrated.

Jesus words will have to stand on their own merit... as people choose to read them... including you. But you cannot force me to agree.

Either it applies to eunuchs or it doesn't or some homosexuals are not born that way which flies in the face of what we are told today to justify all of this uprooting of millienia of tradition.

Tradition for some, forced upon all.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
This is refreshing... thank you.. i know many Religious people get grouped into one category, but i know that many religious people are ok with not only the GLBTQ umbrella but are supportive in our quest for equality.

So thank you

Thank you. I'm weary and saddened as all Christians -- and to some extent, all people of faith -- are represented in the most hateful manner. And we both know there are always people ready to be that person. I don't want to be that person. Especially as a Christian, because the Jesus I know and love was all about love, and tried to impress that in his teachings in so many ways, so many times. The more I try to reconcile my faith and my politics, the more I believe that love is the answer, and our job is to find ways and reasons to just plain love one another and be good to one another. Which is totally in line with our founding principles and Social Contract. I can't force others to agree, but I can provide a new perspective.

It sounds simplistic, I know, but that's where I'm at.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

Why couldn't the term just mean a man who doesn't have sex with women? There are different reasons why a man would not have sex with women:

A. He has decided to be celibate

B. He was castrated

C. He was born a homosexual

Thank you for clarifying that. That's my understanding of Jesus' words, and both Roman and Talmudic Law at that time, which would have been the context within which he was speaking.

a reply to: Boadicea

Great post S&F

a reply to: Boadicea

IF it is a sin, it is not a sin against me, and not my place to judge nor justify.

This is the one thing that many Christians seem to forget. Not even the Pope has the right to judge people for their sins that right falls to God alone.

One can love someone and disagree with what they do. Gay marriage has no business in a Christian church, though all gays should be welcome and loved.