Jesus in support of gay marriage?

Dear R Whatley,

I appreciate your comment because it is a rare, reasoned response to an issue, homosexuality and Christianity, over which many people simply have already formed their opinions (often based on unexamined prejudice against all Christians as intolerant, on one hand, and all homosexuals as depraved, on the other). I'll get right to the crux of your point, "confusing the issue of orientation and activity", because, from the your same premises, I derive much different directions for my reasoning.

I must claim right out that I am a Christian, a believer and follower in the message, example, and teachings of Jesus as a divine being. I am not a Biblicist; that is I don't believe every single word of the Old and New Testament is somehow the Word of God. In fact as a follower of Christ, I believe we are evoked by Jesus to challenge the old laws that have reduced compassion and openness to spiritual inspiration to mere obedience to old laws. The evidence of example is there: Jesus came to challenge and change the old Law, and he did, (as when he challenged and "eye for an eye" and replaced it with "loving your enemy", as one of many examples). [As an aside: Nor do I believe that people should be stoned to death for wearing cotton/poly blend t-shirts (two types of thread), and other obscure restrictions put forth by the Pharisees.] When contradictions arise in the Bible, I follow the consistent example of radical compassion and inclusion provided by Christ.

My first point in the initial blog entry was to debunk the notion that Jesus ever made an observations or declarations at all about the biological basis of marriage. He was not asked, "What constitutes marriage?", in the relevant passage I cited but rather, "If a man and woman are married, should they be allowed to divorce?" So my first point is that Jesus himself is silent on homosexuality and the biological basis for spiritual marriage. This is not surprising since homosexuality as an orientation was never really named until the late 1800's with the rise of the social sciences as a profession.

Secondly, given this,and given, as you mentioned, that "it is not in the will nor the word of God for us to determine that homosexuality is acceptable before God", we are left with the notion that sexual orientation is not condemnable from either a Christian or Biblical standpoint. In Biblical times marriage was assumed to be between a man and a woman. There were no alternatives nor recognition that there might be alternatives. We now have an established alternative-- gay marriage, upon which Jesus, nor the Bible, says anything. Now we are left with a conundrum: How do we handle this? You and I go about it two different ways.

You accept that homosexuality may be a God-given orientation or at least an orientation that is not in our province as humans to judge. You accept that you are oriented heterosexually. Okay. I am oriented heterosexually as well. Given our respected God-given natures, why are we hypocritical about what we then allow as "activity" sexuality-wise. Shouldn't it be simply natural for homosexuals and heterosexuals to consummate their loving relationships (that come from their God-given natures) physically, institutionally, and communally? "Well, Leviticus states that "a man cannot lie down with a man" and therefore prohibits sexual activity between gay men. [We can argue over this convenient interpretation of Leviticus at a later time.]

However, even if this interpretation is perfect, are we not putting the letter before the Spirit here? This can cut both ways. Letter-wise, the Bible says nothing at all about gay women and their sexual behavior, and since they are not engaging in what has been defined as traditional sexual behavior, does this mean everything is okay for them? This is the problem of putting the letter before the spirit. Gay women are not mentioned in the Bible. What they do as "activity" is not considered "sex" by the Bible. Therefore, one has no ground to criticize them at all via the letter of the Bible.

I think you may be confusing "promiscuity" with homosexuality. The passage I quoted from Jesus and other passages create a very clear message about Christian spirit and teaching: All romantic and sexual relations between people attracted to one another through their God-given natures must be compassionate, intimate, mindful, respectful, and committed. Sexual activity isn't just recreation (nor is it just procreation), it is spiritual intercourse, and as with any spiritual activity it must be fully honored not to be considered misconduct or sin. There is an openness, an honesty, and a vulnerability around sex, two souls coming together emotionally, physically, spiritually. This must be attended to with the deepest, honoring part of oneself.

This goes for homosexual persons as well as heterosexual persons. You are not honoring the spirit in another, and therefore you are disrespecting God, when you are using others simply for sexual pleasure, being unfaithful, etc. BUT ALSO (as Jesus said) when you have hardened your heart to your spiritual partner, as happens in many "Puritanical" relations which deny the importance of physical and emotional intimacy. Sexual activity must be done with the intent of long-term spiritual, emotional, and physical commitment in order for it not to be misconduct both for heterosexuals and homosexuals. It is the "nature" (honoring vs. abusive or "cold") and not "type" (heterosexual or homosexual) of the activity that makes it a sin or a virtue.

Heterosexual OR homosexual sexual promiscuity, abuse, callousness, mindlessness, etc. are sins. Again, arguments have been made for an "honoring" sex life that includes multiple partners in "open" relationships heterosexual and homosexual. It appears that they have largely proven themselves inadequate to their claims, causing tensions, break-ups, "weirdness," etc. I can't think of one successful example. Sinful behaviors, thanks to a compassionate God, have a self-correcting mechanisms within them, if we listen. Sinful activity "misses the mark" and lets us experience the consequences: usually momentary pleasure with long-term painful consequences. This is also a call for other community members to compassionately support the virtuous behavior and refuse to support (but forgive) sinful behavior.

But as I said before, hatred and other forms of anti-compassion toward gay people attempting to engage in virtuous behavior, who do engage in monogamous, loving, honoring, long-term commitments to one another, who contribute to their communities is also a great sin. The prevention of a formal recognition (with attendant legal rights) is also a sin within the Christian tradition, if one is to take Christ's example seriously, and the presence of the Living Christ within oneself.

Zeus Yiamouyiannis, Ph.D.
Berkeley, CA

Okay Darius,

Let me get this straight, Rev. Darius Right, is your right-wing alter-ego, who "plays" a composite role to communicate the collective message of right-wing demagogues. When you said, "mostly silliness, but not really..." you were referring to the absurdity of their positions and the extremity of their remarks, but that they were also taken seriously by far too many people. Okay.

But what is ultimately the point of being ambiguous about your role-playing? Like Mike Royko or other journalists, they reference this alter-ego person explicitly so as to not create confusion. When I asked you on this point you did not provide a clear answer. I think there are two good points in what you are attempting to do, 1) to develop an "internal" understanding of (and even "connection" with) our right-wing brethren, perhaps even to the point of being able to "role play" them, to occupy their position and attempt to see and speak their world views through their eyes and tongues, 2) to give us practice challenging their rhetoric, biblically and otherwise.

The only problem is in understanding the likely readership of this site, who would simply read you as another demagogue and perhaps use it as reason never to visit again. Perhaps I should have signed my challenges "Reverend Left", but ultimately role play comes up sort. I do appreciate the challenges and opportunities to respond. It is useful. But I'm more with Socrates on this one. Occupy your own person and speak with passion and thoughfulness. If there is an element in you or me that can identify or understand what is going on in the minds of others that gives rise to generate bigotry, then let's enter those observations as part of the conversation, otherwise it can simply come off as more vitriol instead of constructive role-playing.

Zeus Yiamouyiannis, Ph.D.
Berkeley, CA