Friday, March 05, 2004
Christianity and Homosexuality
Responsa from Dave:
Oz: “I mentioned the relationship [of Jesus-John] to illustrate that the early Church was not so awash in anti-homosexual sentiment and fear that it felt compelled to expunge or tone down the loving relationship depicted in the Gospel of John. I have no doubt that by St. Augustine’s time such things would have been redacted out.”
Dave: “And I have no doubt it would not be. Canonically, there could be no valid reason to remove it. I think that the “anti-homosexual sentiment” you fear in this case is a (admittedly unreasonable) reaction to the modernist assumption that all close same-sex (or, at least, male-male) friendships are necessarily homoerotic. I don’t believe that was a common assumption even 100 years ago, let alone in Augustine’s time. I am open to correction on this point, however, if you know more than I.
Oz: “Homosexuality is NOT singled out, either by Jesus or Paul.”
Dave: “I’m not sure if I am misreading you or not. It seems to me you are saying that you agree that homosexual behavior is sinful, but that since it is not singled out, it does not rise to the level of other sins that were singled out. I'm not sure what to make of this belief, if indeed it is yours. I don't really understand why this leads to a belief that same-sex “marriage” should be legalized.
Oz: “I firmly believe that my Lord and Savior is far more horrified by a casual, flippant treatment of a sacred institution by supposedly “God-fearing” heteros than two men or two women wanting to enter into a social contract with the utmost reverence. As far as the level of true Sin, the level of affront to God, the level of indecency involved? I will take a heartfelt Gay marriage over Britney any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.”
Dave: “I understand your argument, but I believe the willful and planned bastardization of marriage constituted by two members of the same sex getting “married” with the supposed “utmost reverence” is worse than an unplanned and drunken “marriage” that was acknowledged by all involved to be wrong, misguided, and, not to mention, invalid.”
Oz: Bastardization is a very poor choice of words, and if you seriously believe to honest men or women seeking a legal and/or religious ceremony to help them remain faithful to each other and ritualize their commitment is somehow morally worse than a 55 hour weekend legal marriage conducted with utter disregard for faith or commitment, my friend, you have truly lost your way.
If you are calling this marriage invalid due to the annulment - I'm sorry you can't have it both ways. Either they were legally married and then legally unmarried, i.e. divorced, or they were fornicating for that weekend in the sight of God. Either way, it betrays the overt impiety and thoughtlessness of the act. To state that this somehow is morally elevated behavior based solely on the fact that it was a man and a woman is staggeringly short-sighted.
As far as homosexuality not being singled out – my point is that many items on Paul’s hit list are now, wrongly I’d say, “no big deal”, gambling, excessive drinking, etc. and much of the “Religious Right” gets fired up about homosexuality due to a confidence that it is the one sin they are least likely to commit. They are elevating it to ‘supreme sin’ level to thus diminish their own ‘lesser’ sins.
This is, as we say in Illinois, “a full half-acre of horse manure,” and it pisses me off. Paul made no such distinctions. It smacks very hard of condemning that which I will never do as more severe than those things I’ve done, simply because I’ve done them. “I’ve done this, but I’m a good person, how bad can it be?”
My main concern is that canon, (be it Catholic or other branches of Christianity) however much you and I might respect and believe in it, is NOT something that can be knee-jerk enshrined in American civil law. I personally do not advocate Gay marriage – for many of the reasons you state – but I am very concerned about Church doctrine be used as a justification to persecute people SEEKING lawful conduct. This is just a terrible, terrible stand for the Church to take. The Church stance can be clear and unequivocal and needent pull punches.
The Church should have encouraged civil unions in my opinion – whether a union is “Holy Matrimony” IS clearly a Church issue – whether two people can legally partner for life is clearly a State issue. This is my feeling. Some churches will do it, some won't - it is a theological issue. NOT a state issue. The State's only requirement is to ALLOW civil unions.
Personally I think those activist judges in Mass knew this quite well and thus had to make the ruling about marriage specifically because they knew it was a gaping hole in the argument they were making. Civil unions CLEARLY can fulfill the civil rights requirements of Gays if handled correctly – The Mass Supremes knew this and wrote their decision to thwart that argument.
So, I feel the Mass Court is clearly in the wrong, BUT civil unions are clearly legal and justified in American Civil Law.
Comments: ozymandias_1@hotmail.com
Responsa from Dave:
Oz: “I mentioned the relationship [of Jesus-John] to illustrate that the early Church was not so awash in anti-homosexual sentiment and fear that it felt compelled to expunge or tone down the loving relationship depicted in the Gospel of John. I have no doubt that by St. Augustine’s time such things would have been redacted out.”
Dave: “And I have no doubt it would not be. Canonically, there could be no valid reason to remove it. I think that the “anti-homosexual sentiment” you fear in this case is a (admittedly unreasonable) reaction to the modernist assumption that all close same-sex (or, at least, male-male) friendships are necessarily homoerotic. I don’t believe that was a common assumption even 100 years ago, let alone in Augustine’s time. I am open to correction on this point, however, if you know more than I.
Oz: “Homosexuality is NOT singled out, either by Jesus or Paul.”
Dave: “I’m not sure if I am misreading you or not. It seems to me you are saying that you agree that homosexual behavior is sinful, but that since it is not singled out, it does not rise to the level of other sins that were singled out. I'm not sure what to make of this belief, if indeed it is yours. I don't really understand why this leads to a belief that same-sex “marriage” should be legalized.
Oz: “I firmly believe that my Lord and Savior is far more horrified by a casual, flippant treatment of a sacred institution by supposedly “God-fearing” heteros than two men or two women wanting to enter into a social contract with the utmost reverence. As far as the level of true Sin, the level of affront to God, the level of indecency involved? I will take a heartfelt Gay marriage over Britney any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.”
Dave: “I understand your argument, but I believe the willful and planned bastardization of marriage constituted by two members of the same sex getting “married” with the supposed “utmost reverence” is worse than an unplanned and drunken “marriage” that was acknowledged by all involved to be wrong, misguided, and, not to mention, invalid.”
Oz: Bastardization is a very poor choice of words, and if you seriously believe to honest men or women seeking a legal and/or religious ceremony to help them remain faithful to each other and ritualize their commitment is somehow morally worse than a 55 hour weekend legal marriage conducted with utter disregard for faith or commitment, my friend, you have truly lost your way.
If you are calling this marriage invalid due to the annulment - I'm sorry you can't have it both ways. Either they were legally married and then legally unmarried, i.e. divorced, or they were fornicating for that weekend in the sight of God. Either way, it betrays the overt impiety and thoughtlessness of the act. To state that this somehow is morally elevated behavior based solely on the fact that it was a man and a woman is staggeringly short-sighted.
As far as homosexuality not being singled out – my point is that many items on Paul’s hit list are now, wrongly I’d say, “no big deal”, gambling, excessive drinking, etc. and much of the “Religious Right” gets fired up about homosexuality due to a confidence that it is the one sin they are least likely to commit. They are elevating it to ‘supreme sin’ level to thus diminish their own ‘lesser’ sins.
This is, as we say in Illinois, “a full half-acre of horse manure,” and it pisses me off. Paul made no such distinctions. It smacks very hard of condemning that which I will never do as more severe than those things I’ve done, simply because I’ve done them. “I’ve done this, but I’m a good person, how bad can it be?”
My main concern is that canon, (be it Catholic or other branches of Christianity) however much you and I might respect and believe in it, is NOT something that can be knee-jerk enshrined in American civil law. I personally do not advocate Gay marriage – for many of the reasons you state – but I am very concerned about Church doctrine be used as a justification to persecute people SEEKING lawful conduct. This is just a terrible, terrible stand for the Church to take. The Church stance can be clear and unequivocal and needent pull punches.
The Church should have encouraged civil unions in my opinion – whether a union is “Holy Matrimony” IS clearly a Church issue – whether two people can legally partner for life is clearly a State issue. This is my feeling. Some churches will do it, some won't - it is a theological issue. NOT a state issue. The State's only requirement is to ALLOW civil unions.
Personally I think those activist judges in Mass knew this quite well and thus had to make the ruling about marriage specifically because they knew it was a gaping hole in the argument they were making. Civil unions CLEARLY can fulfill the civil rights requirements of Gays if handled correctly – The Mass Supremes knew this and wrote their decision to thwart that argument.
So, I feel the Mass Court is clearly in the wrong, BUT civil unions are clearly legal and justified in American Civil Law.
Comments: ozymandias_1@hotmail.com
