Jesus in support of gay marriage? Part II

This is an extension of my original provocative blog entry, "Jesus in favor of gay marriage?" (http://www.crossleft.org/?q=node/1681). This "Part II" entry emerged as a response to a very respectful and thoughtful dissent by "R Whatley". Mr. Whatley held that homosexual "orientation" might not be a sin, but that homosexual "activity" is a sin, and that I had therefore "missed the point" in my blog entry. According to Whatley, homosexual orientation is not for us to judge, but homosexual "activity" is a Biblical sin. Mr. Whatley's is a much more charitable version of "love the sinner and hate the sin", where being gay itself is not despised, but engaging in sexual activity emanating from that orientation is righteously to be condemned. I challenge this by proposing a consistent description of the "nature" of both virtuous and sinful sexual activity that does not depend upon "type" of sexual orientation.

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 (Matthew 19:3-12) 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 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