What Does Jesus’ Silence on Homosexuality Really Mean?

I’ve heard it suggested that Jesus’ silence on homosexuality is a kind of defacto consent. Or, perhaps, that since homosexuality wasn’t a topic He found worthy of commentary, Christians ought not take a strong stand against something which even Jesus did not publicly stand against.

I have trouble with these explanations. For one thing, I find them anachronistic–inserting our postmodern sensibilities into an ancient context does not necessarily yield an accurate reading of how Jesus perceived this issue.

What was so controversial about Jesus was that He often refuted the religious establishment of His day. In that regard, it seems to me that if Jesus had something to say on homosexuality that would have directly refuted the devout Jewish view, He would have said it.

But He didn’t.

If we’re going to suggest that Jesus’ silence is a kind of consent then don’t we also have to accept the possibility that Jesus’ silence suggests He accepted the Judaic view? To me, that seems only honest.

Even so, I’m not sure either side can claim sole ownership of Jesus’ View On Homosexuality. But I do think both sides must consider the overarching context of what Christ called the Greatest Commandment: to love God with all your being and to love your neighbor as yourself.

My perception is that Christians have been so narrowly focused on defining exactly which particular sexual acts are sinful that we’ve felt justified in heaping shame upon sin and sinner alike.

It is understandable, then, why Christians like myself have stepped back from such specific condemnations and tried to take the Big Picture approach–asking ourselves what it means to love our neighbor? This has led me to believe I cannot deny basic rights to another human being–rights I would not stand to be deprived of myself.

However, I am still unwilling to go so far as to say Christianity is wrong to prescribe any boundaries on sexual activity. Scripture and Christian Tradition are both consistently clear that there are sexual boundaries–regardless of orientation.

As a Christian, I submit to the sexual boundaries placed upon me by my religious beliefs and recognize that these boundaries supersede my particular sexual orientation. In other words, there are sexual obligations and boundaries I am constrained to honor simply because I am human.

As I see it, the Christian perspective on sexuality is informed by several foundational beliefs: 1. that our bodies are temples, that it does matter to God what we do with our physical bodies and as such, it is possible to sin against our bodies. Additionally, Christians believe that while we are living, our bodies are knit together with our souls and spirits. To sin against the body–whether sexually or otherwise–harms us physically, emotionally and spiritually.

The second foundational belief is that God gave us the gift of sexuality not simply as a means to an individual orgasm but for procreation and mutual pleasure. From a Christian perspective, then, sexuality is never solely isolated to “it’s all about me and MY body and I can do whatever I want with it.”

Rather, sexuality is a human being’s most powerful creative source because by it, a man and woman cooperate with God in the creation of eternal souls.

And as a Christian mother, it’s also difficult for me to assert that all familial arrangements are equally beneficial and ideal for children. I still believe children need both a mother and a father. Yes, we live in a broken world where children can be raised (and raised well) despite not having both. However, can we truly assert that any other familial arrangement is more ideal for the well-being of children than being raised in the home of a happily married mother and father? I don’t think so.

Which is why I don’t believe the Christian church ought to retrofit our boundaries for sexual activity; ie. by ordaining openly gay clergy. But I do believe we should work on extending the same legal and civil benefits we enjoy to those who may not hold our own religious beliefs. And mostly, we should welcome any and ALL people to the merciful love of God knowing that only through Him we live and move and have our being.

Still, I remain open and if I’m missing something or not seeing this issue clearly, I welcome your thoughts and comments. I realize that I may have a yet unrecognized bias regarding same-sex issues I’m willing to see this issue differently.

Will you kindly share with me your thoughts? As always, let’s keep the discussion respectful–and especially no personal attacks other commenters you may disagree with, OK? :)

This entry was posted in Current Affairs, Faith. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Ed

    Great Post!  I personally do not see homosexuality as sinful, but agree w/ some of the other thoughts you have on here, esp. in regards to not impugning on other’s rights, an ideal family etc.  

    • Anonymous

      I should probably make clear that I don’t see the state of homosexuality as sinful–in other words, I do think we are BORN with our sexual orientation. But I do struggle with trying to reconcile Scripture’s fairly stark admonitions about the ACT of homosexual sex. Does that make sense?

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1519277518 Tina Sergent Seward

        I think it does.  Right now, I see “sexual orientation” as the *desire* for a sexual relationship with someone, either of the same sex or the opposite sex.  Desiring to have sex, I would see along the same lines of temptation, which isn’t sin.  But the Bible’s also pretty plain about *acts* of sexual sin, and if I understand the Bible correctly, the only act of sex which is sanctioned by the Bible is between a man and a woman who are married to each other.

        • http://thepartythatneverquits.blogspot.com Jen

          Yes. This. :)

      • Mark S.

        Agree

      • Verity3

        I agree too. I make a conscious effort to remain open to a good argument showing that the Bible does not forbid such an act. But frankly, I haven’t encountered one that holds together yet.

        • http://southernxyl.blogspot.com/ Laura

          I agree.  But the Bible forbids all kinds of things.  I am concerned that it’s very easy to throw the book at people who do things I am never tempted to do.  Cheap virtue.  I had a friend once tell me that homosexuality was the one thing God could never forgive.  Is that Biblical?  Don’t think so.  But comforting, maybe, if you’re not gay.  I have a little button that says “I just hope God grades on a curve,” and that’s funny, but we know it’s not true.

          Would just like to see a sense of proportion about this.  And some compassion for people, if we are going to tell them that what they feel is a natural expression of their essential nature is sinful and wrong in every possible circumstance and can never, never be right.

          • Sewsunshine

            “Would just
            like to see a sense of proportion about this.  And some compassion for
            people, if we are going to tell them that what they feel is a
            natural expression of their essential nature is sinful and wrong in
            every possible circumstance and can never, never be right. show more”

            This seems a little silly.  We all desire things, in different areas of life, that are a natural expression of our essential nature, and yet are both sinful and wrong in every possible circumstance.  Someone who struggles with angry impulses, or deceit, or selfishness for example – those impulses are always wrong, and should never be indulged.  Period.  It is not cruel to say this, neither is it from a lack of compassion. It is an acknowledgement of our sin nature, and a realization of our need for God.  Compassion?  Yes, in the sense that Jesus had compassion for us, and made a way for us to be cleansed from our sin and walk in His righteousness, not in the sense of saying, “Well, since it is so hard for you…we’ll make some allowances.”

            The Bible was not written to make us feel good about who we are, rather it was written to empower us to be better than we are, because none of us make the cut on our own.

  • http://www.gatebeautiful.ca bekka

    Your post echoes many of my own thoughts on the issue.  I’ve long been of the opinion that, regardless, we should love the sinner and hate the sin.  But I had never been faced with the situation of knowing anyone who was openly gay until last year.

    I consider them friends, and attended an impromptu wedding reception for them when they decided to do a ceremony while they were in the area for work before going home to hold their formal ceremony the following week.

    I truly hope that I succeeded in showing them love while they were here.  It was a bit of a struggle for me to do so as I was constantly questioning what their relationship might mean.

    Then I read something Alise Wright wrote about affirming love and if the relationship is loving, she couldn’t bring herself to stand in the way.  (Forgive me Alise, if my summary doesn’t do your post the justice it deserves.)

    So, I’m still kind of sitting on a fence on this one.  I don’t think we should be ordaining homosexual clergy, but I do think that homosexuals should be welcomed along with anyone else in a church. 

  • Anonymous

    I think people just didn’t go around talking about homosexuality in Jesus’ time. It probably didn’t occur to them, or to him.

    And I think most of the Christian church will eventually adjust its boundaries to allow for loving, healthy relationships between people of the same gender. It’s already in process, but may take much longer for the church to adjust than it does for civil society.

  • Mindyleigh

    Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the subject. I would disagree that Jesus does not address this issue. Matthew 19 documents: 

    “[Jesus] said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?6So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”
    By focusing solely on the letter of Scripture, it is possible to lose sight of the teachings that have been gleaned from them or to understand Jesus’ teachings on these issues. (Paul does reference homosexual behavior as a sin.)Bl. John Paul II examines human marriage extensively in “Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body” which I would recommend if you haven’t already read it or studied it.Marriage is a great mystery which reflects the creative love of the Holy Trinity. It is called by Bl. JPII the “primordial sacrament.” It is more than just a living arrangement or existing for our pleasure. Given Paul’s extensive treatment of marriage in Ephesians, it seems we have to go out of our way to discredit the Lord’s primary instrument of evangelization to the Gentiles in order to make a point contrary to him.This notion that “if Jesus doesn’t explicitly say it, He doesn’t care” is really making Scripture into an idol. We could make that same case about abortion or any number of things.THe said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’5c and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?6So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’5c and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?6So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” 5and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?6So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” 

  • Liz

    My husband & I have been struggling & thinking about this issue for the last few years. I agree with your entire post. I’ve read everything I could find on line from ‘their side’ using scripture. I’ve come to the same conclusion as you. Having said that-I’m not comfortable being in an assembly where the congregants think being gay means you have no character & they are afraid of gays. We are still thinking about the issue & will love people & resist the negative stereotypes.  

  • Mindyleigh

    Wow, I’m not sure what happened with my comment that just posted. Please delete it! Here is what it should have said:

    Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the subject. I would disagree that Jesus does not address this issue. Matthew 19 documents: ”[Jesus] said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?6So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”By focusing solely on the letter of Scripture, it is possible to lose sight of the teachings that have been gleaned from them or to understand Jesus’ teachings on these issues. (Paul does reference homosexual behavior as a sin.)Bl. John Paul II examines human marriage extensively in “Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body” which I would recommend if you haven’t already read it or studied it.Marriage is a great mystery which reflects the creative love of the Holy Trinity. It is called by Bl. JPII the “primordial sacrament.” It is more than just a living arrangement or existing for our pleasure. Given Paul’s extensive treatment of marriage in Ephesians, it seems we have to go out of our way to discredit the Lord’s primary instrument of evangelization to the Gentiles in order to make a point contrary to him.This notion that “if Jesus doesn’t explicitly say it, He doesn’t care” is really making Scripture into an idol. We could make that same case about abortion or any number of things 

  • MMM

    I guess I’m just not quite clear on what you mean by extending them “legal and civil benefits.”

    Because if, as you’ve explained, you believe sex to be inherently directed towards procreation as well as mutual support, it seems that “marriage” (which is also directed toward those two ends) of two men, or two women, simply doesn’t make sense. I’m not saying we should prohibit them living together, or ostracize them in any way, I’m just saying it doesn’t make sense either to call homosexual acts “sex,” or to call a homosexual union “marriage.” Hope that makes sense and doesn’t sound nasty – I’m just saying, all questions of the morality of homosexual acts aside, if you hold those views of sex and marriage, that’s the conclusion that seems to follow.

    • Anonymous

      Here’s the difference: the CHRISTIAN viewpoint is inherently directed toward procreation and mutual support. However, I am also a citizen of our civil society and as such, I don’t think it’s right for me to impose my own Christian viewpoint on others who do not share my religious beliefs and therefore, it seems only fair for me to not support such measures as, say, Prop 8. Does that help clarify? :)

      • Peony Moss

        Thing is, though, is that it’s not a uniquely Christian viewpoint.  Across cultures, including those untouched by Christianity and Judaism, marriage is a society’s recognition of a male-female relationship.  Some societies accept polygamy, true, but those are still male-female relationships.

        For example, in classical Greece, there was no stigma to male homosexuality, but homosexual relationships were never called “marriage.”  

        Christians aren’t the only ones who vote for measures like Prop 8.   And Christians have the same right to put ideas forward and vote as anybody else.  You can propose Christian ideas that will help society without “imposing” your beliefs on others.  
        After all, it also isn’t fair for the anti-religious to impose their viewpoint on others, is it? 

        • AK

          Agreed!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1519277518 Tina Sergent Seward

    I posted on my own blog that Jesus never said anything about rape, incest, pornography, beastiality, or child abuse.  Does that mean that by his silence, Jesus approved of those behaviors?  (That’s meant to be a rhetorical question.)

    Having said that, I will also say this:  1.  I think Christians have shown an appalling lack of love towards homosexuals.  That’s just as sinful as sexual sin.  2.  I am wrestling with the legal ramifications of gay marriages, civil unions, etc. and don’t have a final stance for myself.  (Morally, I *cannot* agree with the concept of gay marriage; but I don’t know where I stand *legally*.) 

    I have heard of a Christian family whose child came out as gay.  The family has done and is doing everything possible to keep the lines of communication open . . . including going to gay bars with their child.  Right now, I can’t see myself doing that with a child–but how can I criticize a parent who is trying to show the love of God to their child?  Answer:  I can’t. 

    • KJ

      Tina,   I agree Jesus didn’t specifically say anything about the things you listed. 

      Everything in you list is an act of violence or selfishnesses that is against another person. Which is against His ultimate command which was to love each other.  So the fact that he didn’t specifially  speak to those things is because if weighed against His commands they can’t be justified.

       To add homosexuals to that list is not even remotely fair.  Maybe you don’t know any loving same sex couples.  But I do and they are not out committing selfish acts against each other or others.  They live out the command to love one another. 

       

  • KatR

    I think that’s the problem when people try to say that the Bible is the 100% perfect, totally relevant Guidebook for Life…..if that’s the case, Jesus, knowing the future, SHOULD have weighed in on homosexuality. And Facebook.

    I don’t have much more to add, as my own opinions on this are no longer shaped by the Bible. But I’ll be interested to read other responses.

     

  • MattPT

    I guess I am on the fence as well but mine is more along the lines of “Why is there such a focus on the gay community?” I’ve seen such a concentrated effort against the “gay agenda” that it’s made me wonder if the people who are so strong against this is out of fear from adjusting to their norms (i.e. God in box). I think your argument hits the nail in the head on why this is such a hot issue. It shouldn’t be or at least it shouldn’t be so greatly contested. Is it debatable? Sure. But that shouldn’t supersede Christ’s commandment on how to react to those around me, whether I know their background or not and whether it falls under my kind of beliefs or not. Remember, Samaritans in the parable in Luke 10 were despised by the Jewish community at that time, making it clear to love your neighbor as the Samaritan did, regardless of whether that man he helped was a Jew, Gentile, fellow Samaritan or someone else. If Christ initiated that love for us by dying on the cross for all and we are to take up our cross like Christ did and be imitators of Christ, perhaps we should act more like Christ in His view of others in love rather than letting the human nature of fear and hate speak the “message” of Jesus.

  • http://www.ronamundson.com/twitter/ Ron Amundson

    My church body has provided for openly gay ordinations since the 90′s and since 2009, pretty much the same as same sex married clergy albeit with a different term. The issue of welcoming was the tipping point for many. Ie, is someone really welcome and included in fellowship, if they cant be ordained?

    I struggled a bit with the anti-gay prooftexts for a number of years… was it traditional interpretation, cultural bias, or was it as clear as could be, as a number of anti-gay clergy folks believe. I dont know there there is an answer. I’ve pounded on the Greek, bugged theologians on both sides, and still found much ambiguity. Scripture + tradition will give one answer, scripture + reason + experience another. Ultimately, I think the hardcore folks on both sides of this either side with tradition, or with reason+experience, no matter how much they try to portray a scripture alone approach.

    I used to say… it doesn’t matter, I’m comfortable with ambiguity… that was, until I had a couple young staffers come to me and say they had to resign as they were moving in together. Then it became real, and no, I did not accept their resignation, even though having a couple openly gay young women in charge of youth ministry rankled a few folks.

  • Anonymous

    I agree with you on everything here. I think there is a way to retain the Biblical view of homosexuality as sin while not making it into a major political issue. I will always counsel someone out of the homosexual stronghold because it’s my duty to care spiritually for people, but I also recognize that God gave us free will. To prohibit sin that does not directly infringe upon the rights of others (i.e., not on the same class as laws against murder, rape, or theft) lacks faith, in my opinion.

    A valid argument from the socially conservative perspective is that if homosexuality is normalized, child sexual abuse will become normalized as well (which has pretty much already happened). An easy way to combat this to prosecute molestation and statutory rape—not homosexual marriage. We cannot afford a double standard on morals which deal with harm to the unconsenting. Another valid practical (but not theoretical) argument is the kind of thing we’re seeing in Britain right now, where anti-discrimination laws have pretty much become an excuse to discriminate against Christians—not allowing them to foster and adopt, etc., because of their beliefs. In the United States, counseling graduate programs mandate compliance with the homosexual lifestyle in order to graduate, which is a religious rights infringement.

    If the government weren’t so involved, it wouldn’t have to be gay rights vs. religious rights. But Christians are also part of the problem. Sad, huh?

    • http://www.ronamundson.com/twitter/ Ron Amundson

      I think there is another issue, and that’s co-mingling church and state. So many church programs could not function without state funding… If the state grants rights counter to the beliefs of the churches, its pretty likely funding for programs outside the scope of those rights will go away. The NAE and USCCB had a huge letter some weeks back where in funding loss concerns covered nearly half of it.

      In some ways, I think forcing the church to stand on its own could well be the trigger for the next great awakening, and a refocus on its real priority, the Gospel. On the other hand, the loss of many programs is a sad deal, that is unless the church steps up to the plate in funding them, just as they did in many years past.

      • Anonymous

        Interesting. Universities deal with the same thing: when they receive federal funding, they have to play by their rules. Their hands are tied, even if they think the rules are silly. As churches, we do NOT want our hands tied, so it’s better not to get involved in the first place…

        • Liz Gill

          AMEN!

    • Jenna

      Your statement: 
      A valid argument from the socially conservative perspective is that if homosexuality is normalized, child sexual abuse will become normalized as well (which has pretty much already happened). 

      Can you please express why this is a valid statement because you are linking two statements together without showing how the two are actually linked?

  • jill

    As a lapsed Catholic and someone who left a Christian Church due to the pastor’s stance on someone being gay (simply put, he said that it’s wrong) I am interested in reading the comments.  I just inherently disagreed with the previous pastor and can not rationalize going to a church (and sending my 4 children through the children’s program) where this is taught. 

    My question is how/why is this so wrong? Why are gays ostracized? How is this truly showing our Christian side? How is this showing Jesus’ love to everyone we come in contact with? I’m not sure we can use the bible as a modern-day roadmap on how to act/react to every situation.  (As someone said, rape isn’t mentioned and most everyone agrees this is wrong) 

    I’m not interested in changing my viewpoint of people being gay (I support them and speak out against discrimination of any type, which unfortunately, in my town, is rarer than I would prefer), I’m just interested in hearing how this is rationalized or tolerated within the Christian Church.  

    Thanks for blogging about this EE.

  • Derrick

    I hope the comment box can handle this…and I apologize for the lengthy discussion in advance.

    I too have difficulty interpreting an argument from silence as “permission” or “condoning” of a behavior. Jesus didn’t mention many things, and more importantly the Biblical writers who quoted Jesus didn’t mention many things. I think that we make a mistake if we assume that any portion of scripture should be used as a means of creating a checklist of right and wrong. We ask the question “Why didn’t Jesus talk about _________?”; I think the Biblical writers respond, “You’ve missed the point entirely.” 

    I’m a man, and I’ve personally dealt with homosexuality for years. I grew up in a church that condemned homosexuality and had parents whose reactions to homosexuality were openly adverse. I learned that gay men were “yucky and disease ridden” without my parents ever intentionally teaching me this. I remember feeling a sense of sexual stirring as I flipped through the men’s underwear section of the JCPenny catalog on my way to circle the toys I wanted. At 8 and 9 years old I learned to be revolted at these stirrings within myself. By the time I was twelve I was secretly dealing with my attraction to both men and women as I emerged from puberty. I went through many prayer services begging God to “take the gay away.” I tried every form of aversion therapy imaginable, and even tried to exclusively focus my sexuality on women by buying Playboy magazines as a teenager. I fell in love with a wonderful woman in college and married her, but I’d be lying if I told you I didn’t see at least one man I found sexually attractive today, and the day before, and the day before that. I identify as bi-sexual.

    For me, as a person who has been a Christian since childhood, and has also recognized attraction to both sexes, I can’t justify a reading of scripture that says that homosexuality is wrong. 

    I can say that stealing is wrong, because it hurts others, I can say that lying is wrong, because it can hurt others, I can say that my acting on my homosexual attractions would be wrong because I made a commitment to my wife. But it’s no different than a man cheating on his wife with another woman. 

    I think for me, it’s important to recognize the culture that our scriptures emerged from. Procreation was the most important thing in the familial unit and the nation. We must recognize the fundamental difference between the culture the scriptures came from, and our own. Our survival no longer rests on our ability to (pro)create strong male warriors to defend our turf from invaders To assert that procreation is part of a Christian family is to deny families with sterile husbands and wives the ability to call themselves a Christian family. To assert that sexuality is meant solely for the purpose of procreation is to deny many enjoyable activities that heterosexual couples enjoy. 

    I do agree that male and female family members are important, but I think it’s far too exclusive to say that a man and a woman are, by default, the best possible arrangement. To me, it’s better to have two mediocre lesbians raising a child than a man and a woman who have no parental sense whatsoever. If they need a male figure, there’s plenty of men who’d love to take that son or daughter out to play baseball, or go to an art class, or participate in their lives in a special way. It can create a unique sense of community and provide a wonderful perspective for the child. I just don’t think we can assert that ANY family structure is better without taking the quality of the people doing the parenting into account. We can’t say that a mother and a father is better than two fathers or two mothers in any given situation. 

    I guess in short, my perspective on homosexuality changed when I saw that after years and years of praying, absolutely nothing had changed for me. I believe that as we mature as Christians, we become more and more like our creator. I’ve become so many things as I’ve matured as a Christian, but less bisexual has not been one of them. I offer my story as one among many and one that is probably arguable at many levels, but if I’m missing something, it’s not for lack of trying. 

    • Jenna

      Just wanted to say I thought this was so well put. :)

    • Jenna

      Just wanted to say I thought this was so well put. :)

    • Verity3

      No, there are not “plenty of men” who would love to spend time with someone else’s child.

      But yes, better two mediocre lesbian parents than a male and female team who have no nurturing ability.

  • Mark S.

    Personally, I don’t think it was an issue per se. Best one can find is a commitment by Jesus to fulfillment of the Law. Silence in the Gospels may mean there were clear common beliefs that were not generally discussed because there was no need or that it simply wasn’t something that was a feature of Jesus’ teaching. Of course, the Church does have the Holy Spirit for guidance on interpreting all the Scriptures and there are prohibitions in a number of Old Testament books. Paul, too, maybe but I defer to you on that one.

  • Wendi

    some of the most wonderful, caring people I know are homosexual. I think our job as Christians is to love them, pray for them, and let the Holy Spirit do His amazing redemptive work in their lives. I do believe the Bible is pretty clear on the meaning and beauty of human sexuality and would venture to say that the homosexual lifestyle is not God’s “best” for anyone, regardless of feelings or inclinations, just like overeating is not God’s “best” for me, in spite of my freedom to indulge myself.

  • Alex

    As a Christian, I completely agree with you here. Why is that homosexuality is so attacked by the church, but cohabitation before marriage between heterosexuals is so overlooked? Why do we think that it is our place to judge and condemn and take away the rights of a homosexual because it is biblically considered sinful? It just doesn’t make sense to me. When Jesus found a woman about to be stoned to death or committing adultery (a sexual sin) he did not condemn her to death. Instead, he loved her. He saved her physical life and fed her spiritually by telling her to go and sin no more. Jesus loved the “controversial” people of his day- prostitutes, tax collectors, and the spiritually bankrupt. If he were around today, he would be loving and ministering to homosexuals- not taking away their rights and casting stones.

    • Anonymous

      “Why is that homosexuality is so attacked by the church, but cohabitation before marriage between heterosexuals is so overlooked?”

      I agree with Alex. There is a hysterical emphasis on  homosexuals in the christian community.  In particular. the ultra-consverative wing of the Catholic Church.  I hear that homosexuals are destroying marriage.  Yet, nearly 50% of children are born outside of marriage and we know what the rate of hetersexual divorce is. 

      If we learned how to love our neighbor we would be much more effective in bringing others to a deeper relationship with God.

  • Falfie4

    Well, a few thoughts here….  First, I think this is a topic with so, so many diverse opinions.  As finite beings, I definitely don’t think any one of us has the “right” opinion entirely, but perhaps we all have snippets of truth on the matter.

    You know, Jesus didn’t address the issue of abortion either, but it is something that was rampant during his time on earth.  Historical evidence shows that as the church grew and people’s lives became transformed, abortion rates dropped.  I think this is true with any issue.  Regardless of whether or not it is a sin to be gay, our relationships should manifest the image of God as we are transformed more and more into his likeness.  If the church was more focused on the two greatest commandments, we might see a dramatic shift in the debate on homosexuality. 

    There are many who believe that it’s not sinful to have same sex desires, but only to act on them.  While this may be true, I just wish we could all take a long pause and really sit in the ramifications of that.  In fact, I really wish American Christendom would take a very long pause on behalf of everyone who struggles with same sex desires.  I mean, wow, lifelong celibacy?!  Yeah…….  I don’t see many heterosexuals jumping on that bandwagon, in-spite of Paul’s admonitions.  Let’s just please have a little more sensitivity about that one before throwing it out there like we are asking someone to commit to a week without dessert (I know you didn’t specifically address this issue, but it’s something that generally bugs me in the debate).   :)  

    I also want to push back a bit on the issue of gay parenthood.  We have been commanded to care for orphans as Christians.  There are 300 million orphans worldwide, currently.  Maybe it is ideal for children to have both a mother AND father, but until the church steps up and takes the command to care for orphans more seriously, I don’t think they have the right to say anything about anyone else trying to do it.  While many homosexual couples may not be motivated by the gospel (as we should be), they seem to be doing a much better job of living it out in this regard than most Christian heterosexual couples.  I believe it is infinitely better for a child to be raised by a loving, homosexual couple than to be raised  in foster care or orphanages.  I’m kind of appalled by the objection of Christians to homosexual couples trying to provide loving homes to orphans. 

    • Liz Gill

      Lifelong celibacy we expect from Catholic clergy. Why hould we not hold those with same sex attraction to that same standard?

      • Falfie4

        Well, I never said we shouldn’t hold them to that standard.  I said we should be a little more careful about throwing it out there without showing a great deal of respect and admiration for how difficult that life is.  Only a few Catholics enter the clergy and there is a great deal of respect for those who make that choice because of how extremely difficult celibacy is.  Not everyone can handle that lifestyle, which is why only a few choose it.  Why don’t we show the same sensitivity to those with SSA?   

        Also, I think there is a big difference there.  Clergy are called to serve the church in that position.  It’s not as a result of someone’s belief that they are sinful that they are required to be celibate, so I don’t really think it’s a fair comparison.

        • Liz Gill

          Well, yes, being clergy is a tad different. However, I was indeed refering to those Catholics with SSA. (myself being one) Yeah,  celibacy is hard. But it’s worth it.

  • http://felicemifa.wordpress.com/ MF

    Great thoughts – I’m curious about this line:  “Which is why I don’t believe the Christian church ought to retrofit our
    boundaries for sexual activity; ie. by ordaining openly gay clergy.” Particularly in the Catholic Church, in which clerical discipline includes celibacy, is it really a problem to ordain someone who admits to a same-sex attraction without acting on it? I’m inclined to say no. Celibacy is celibacy, no matter to whom you are attracted.

    • Bonbon

      MF, I used to think that same sex attraction in the Catholic clergy was no big deal either as long as they remained celibate.  The problem with SSA for the priest  in the Catholic Church, though, is that the priest is acting in personae Christi.  The church is Christ’s bride.  He is the bridegroom.  The priest is fulfilling that role.

  • Carebear_018

    God is not silent on this issue. He created marriage between a man and a woman in the presence if Jesus.

  • http://faithandfood.morizot.net/ Scott Morizot

    First, we need to recognize and understand what the Gospels are and what they aren’t. An euvangelion described a particular sort of good news. It was the proclamation of the good news that a king had come to power, had overcome the enemies, and was bringing peace to the people of his kingdom. Each of gospels are quite different from each other. Mark is apocalyptic. Matthew frames the good news to a Jewish audience in a form that replicates the structure of the Torah. Luke writes to Gentiles. John is the theological gospel (and it may be that John was primarily used to teach the mysteries of the faith to new converts more than it was used to proclaim the euvangelion of Jesus the Christ — which is to say Messianic king — to those who were not Christian). None of them are meant to provide all-encompassing rules for Christian faith and practice. Heck, they don’t even provide any sort of detailed guide to worship like temple Judaism had. They are the center of our faith, but their purpose is to proclaim Jesus as Messiah, God, and King of heaven and earth and to give us his commands, which can be summarized in the command to love God and others. And then a whole lot about how that sort of love looks in action.

    Second, we have to realize that trying to read anything about modern monogamous homosexual relationships into scripture is by necessity anachronistic. But frankly, so is trying to read anything about our modern monogamous heterosexual relationships into scripture. Here’s the reality. In the ancient world people largely didn’t get to choose who they married. Sometimes they didn’t even get much or any input into the decision. Marriages were also not generally about love at all, though people could learn to love each other. Marriages were largely a commercial and survival activity. So it didn’t really matter much what your sexual preferences were unless you were wealthy and powerful (by some reports, Nero was an example of that end of the spectrum). Certainly by the time of Jesus there were those who chose celibate lives among Jews (Jesus, John, and even before his conversion Paul are prime examples) and that carried over into Christianity and grew into the Christian monastic tradition. But nothing like our modern marriage practices existed in that world and it’s anachronistic to try to read them into the text.

    Third, in Christian understanding of reality, we are our bodies. We don’t have a body, we are our body. We are embodied spiritual beings and angels are the spiritual beings without bodies. There is no sense that we can in any way be separated or divorced from our bodies. Moreover, our bodies are themselves the new Temple of God replacing the tabernacle/temple of Judaism. It’s within our bodies that the Spirit of God dwells. (Which is the reason Christianity has had so much to say about the way we should treat the bodies of those who have reposed with reverence and why relics of saints have had such a prominent place. But that’s a different discussion.) So yes, the things we do with our bodies matters. However, the way we treat others matters greatly. And there are two ways we most commonly misuse sex. Sometimes we treat another human being as an object to use for our pleasure. Or we can use sex to dominate, manipulate, or control another — all a form of violence against another human being. Those are not love.

    How does that all translate into something we can use in our modern relationships? To quote Tevye, “I’ll tell you. I don’t know.” But gay or straight, it’s better to be in a monogamous relationship in which both parties treat each with love and respect than to be in other sorts of relationships. So it seems to me we should encourage rather than discourage stronger bonds. I also think we have to do something about the beam in our own eyes before we worry about the speck in the others. Heterosexual marriage among Christians in America is in shambles. We need to start there. And I don’t see any way we can go wrong by treating others with dignity and respect and love.

    I’ll also note that the physical passions of lust, gluttony, etc. can rule us (straight or gay) and be destructive, but those are traditionally considered the lesser passions. They are easier to see and tend to have a harder time acting on our spirit. Both scripture and Christian tradition (and Jesus for that matter) warn us much more about passions like envy, greed, and covetousness. Those are the passions that most directly pervert our likeness to God. If someone is destroying themselves or others through lust or gluttony, that has to be resolved, of course. But in a faithful, loving, committed relationship (gay or straight) there are probably other things besides sex that require attention and work.

    Finally, God’s goal is for us to be joined in communion with him as far as we are able – to participate with him in creation. Union with God or theosis is our salvation — nothing less. In that grand scheme, I’m not convinced gay marriage really matters all that much one way or another. It doesn’t seem like something that should be a central focus to me. But then, I’ve had gay friends much of my life (a lot of which wasn’t as a Christian) so I lack the visceral reaction it seems many of my fellow evangelicals have on the topic.

    Oh, and the studies I’ve seen, if I recall correctly, have shown that children from stable families with gay parents do at least as well as children from stable families with straight parents. The stability and two involved parents factor seems to be more important than the gender of those parents. So I don’t really consider that a factor at all.

    • Anonymous

      Thanks for this, Scott. When i wrote this i was thinking to myself: “I can’t wait to read Scott’s thoughts on this.” Much appreciated.

    • Derrick

      Such clear, concise, and yet eloquent thoughts on the subject. Thank you. Mind if I quote you at some point?

  • http://prosario2000.myopenid.com/ Pedro M. Rosario Barbosa

    Well, I have a problem with holding the ideal as the sole criterion for denying other sorts of couples to raise children.  I agree with you that the ideal is that children are raised by a mother and a father.  And yes, we live in a broken world … it will always be broken, since we are all imperfect. 

    Yet, I still have to scratch my head when religions, including ours (Roman Catholicism), finds it more acceptable for children to be raised by a single mother, than with two same-sex loving parents.  If the fear is that children will turn out to be gay … well … they won’t.  No scientific study suggests that they actually do become any gayer than any other kid raised by straight parents.  As it turns out, homosexuality, transgender, and other sexual orientations, are mostly the result of biology, rather than mere social interactions.  That having same-sex parents will be difficult for these children socially? … Yes, and the same thing happened to children of interracial couples.  That they can’t procreate?  Well, yes … but again, the Church has no problem marrying the elderly.

    And yes, I agree wholeheartedly that there should be boundaries regarding what we do with our bodies.  We should not rape, for instance.  Ethics matters.  In this sense, John Paul II’s theology of the body is a theological gem, even when I don’t exactly agree with some of his practical conclusions.  However, why should that boundary include same-sex couples is beyond me …   Because Jesus didn’t say anything about it?  He never said anything about slavery, which is a positively social ill.  He never said anything about many other social ills of his time, but only those which were pertinent for his ministry.   Because it is unnatural?  To call for this particular argument (as I have argued before) constitutes the naturalistic fallacy (informal short-version of the fallacy:  ”because something is natural, it is good; and if it is unnatural, it is bad”).  Because St. Paul said so?  Although much of St. Paul’s views are more advanced than people actually think.  Yet, he didn’t shake the view we now know to be mostly false, that all homosexual tendencies or activities are just unnatural acts of perversion.

    Although I like the spirit of this particular post, I have to disagree with you regarding this particular subject.

  • suzin

    For me, I have my own views on homosexuality not being a sin in and of itself…believe it or not, these views were highly shaped by articles by Peggy Compolo and my own reading of scripture…but like you I believe God has put boundaries on our sexuality…for everyone, not just gay ,not just women….everyone. and loving like we love ourselves…whatever your thoughts on homosexuality are, Jesus is real clear on this commandment, and who would ever deny themselves basic human rights or the right to love and be loved…
    To me ,it is the focus on this issue that is so annoying ,when no one talks about what Christ has said about money, divorce, forgiveness….
    Thanks for the post and the reminder for me to love as I am loved….and not just gay people….all people….
    Love your blog, just thought i would say…..

  • http://saltandgrace.wordpress.com/ cara gabrielse

    you put to paper (cyber paper?) much of what has been going on in my head. one of the areas that my husband and i are stuck on is that he believes civil unions are okay but that marriage should be reserved for one man one woman. his point is if they both provide the same rights under the law, why do we need to extend the right of marriage as well? my point is if they both extend the same rights, why are we are we holding on to the word “marriage?”  his point is that marriage is ordained by God. it has always been a religious rite. my point is we don’t create laws that say what a church can and can not do (except in the case of gay marriage). his point is we should always contend for what pleases God. my point is God is pleased when we contend for love of his people. 

    it is good to discuss these things!

    what are your thoughts about civil unions vs. marriage? are civil unions enough of a basic right?

  • Peony Moss

    But I do believe we should work on extending the same legal and civil benefits we enjoy to those who may not hold our own religious beliefs.
    I think this is where things start getting sticky.  As your other commenters have noted, being same-sex attracted (SSA) is not itself a sin, and it’s ridiculous to harp on gays while ignoring fornication, adultery, and even more corrosive sins in the pride and envy lines.

    But being welcoming and kind to our brothers and sisters who are SSA doesn’t mean that we have to approve of any and every way they might choose to live out their lives, and rewrite pan-cultural definitions of marriage that are thousands of years old.

    For example, let’s say I live up the street from a (straight) couple who are living together but not married.  I can show them respect by not hassling them and by bringing down a casserole when somebody’s sick.  But I don’t have to approve of what they’re doing, and as a society we are not obliged to call their relationship “marriage”. 

    Same thing with my gay co-worker who’s in a committed relationship.  It’s my duty to treat him with kindness and respect.  If I mock him, I’m sinning.  And I can honor and respect all the good aspects of his relationship.  But that doesn’t mean we have to change the meaning of “marriage” to include this particular relationship.There are plenty of same-sex couples out there who do not agree with redefining marriage; as far as protecting themselves legally, they feel they’re doing fine with a POA and an up-to-date will.  I’ve heard proposals about creating a legal framework for people who can’t marry to manage issues like inheritance, guardianship, etc.  - something that could be used by a same-sex couple, adult siblings, or other household situations – and I think that’s something that could work.

    • Liz Gill

      Exactly. This is really good.

      • Peony Moss

        Many thanks, especially in light of your recent comment upstream.

    • Cyndy

      I agree with what Peony Moss has said here. I would also like to add that while SSA’s might be offended if I foist my views on them in judgement, I too am offended when they do the same to me. 
      I never want to show anything less than a kind and loving spirit toward any human being. I want to love my neighbor as myself, however that does not obligate me to condone ANY sin…but I’m still obligated to love the sinner.

  • Nurse Bee

    My thoughts are this:  1)  that being in a homosexual relationship is wrong according to the Bible 2) homosexuality is absolutely no worse or better than many other sins that are over looked by our culture 3) Christians in general treat the gay community horribly 4) that the acceptable of homosexuality by some of the Christian community is just a result of our larger culture not wanting to say things are right or wrong 5) there are no easy answers to how things can/should be fixed….

  • Liz Gill

    A Catholic here.

    I have no problem with those who practice their same sex attraction recieving the benefits of visitation, ect. What I do have a problem with is the state trying to extend the word marriage to cover that. Civil unions? Sure. Same sex marriage? No.
     I am 99% sure that this view agrees with the Church…. The state has no right to define and redefine marriage (and yes, that sentence alone opens a whole can of worms….) I’d actually perfer that the state have nothing to do with marriages; licensing and what have you. 

    As to Jesus’ silence on homosexuality? First, Leviticus 18:22: .You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.

    Second, Matthew 5:17: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.”

    Seems pretty clear to me that He was not all that silent.

    Good post :)

  • sdc

    Whew! Lots of good comments and I tried to read thru most of them so I don’t just repeat stuff. One comment from my old pastor I found helpful:

    ALL of us have broken sexualities. (In other words, my “straightness” is still far from perfect! Jesus DID do a good job of pointing this out) So the solution for a broken straight person and a broken gay person are the same: faith in Jesus’ loving sacrificial act that pays for all sins (past, present and future) Of course, the practical workings out of this thru a lifetime will be different for each person and require lots of faith and grace-bound effort.

    Another wise person has pointed out that the opposite of being gay isn’t being straight, it’s being holy. If we take a person w/ SSA and counsel them thru it so that somehow their preferences change (not always possible in this life), we still haven’t helped them achieve the most pressing, beautiful and urgent goal of reconciling their hearts and souls with their loving creator. I realized I need to love my gay friends and relatives for the goal of giving them Jesus, not heterosexuality. That topic can only be worked thru after the holy spirit begins his work.

    One of the best resources on this topic for me has been “God’s grace and the homosexual next door”. I don’t know why the negative reviews online are so harsh (the authors, all having lived w/ SSA, are very loving and gracious) I recommend this strongly, also recommend checking out Christopher Yuan’s testimony. Chris also has given a great lecture on passages in the bible RE this topic where he debunks harmful attempts to re-interpret relevant passages. Dude knows what he’s talking about

  • http://everydaymanofgod.com/ Tony Casados

    Wow!
    Elizabeth, this is an excellent piece of writing.  I feel like I should say more, but can’t.  This was just outstanding. 

  • UnknownBeauty

    I’m curious about whether or not you consider marriage by Biblical standards a separate issue from the legal right to marry? I did not read all the comments so if it has already been addressed, my apologies. When you say “basic rights,” I’m assuming that you mean gay marriage (among other things) based on previous posts of yours that I’ve read. I agree that we shouldn’t treat homosexuals any different that heterosexuals as far as basic decency, but to condone gay marriage would be contradictory to the model of marriage that the Bible sets up, no? Marriage can be viewed as just a social contract, and many do, but to condone gay marriage yet admit that children are best served by a mother and father is a little confusing. Should gay couples just not be allowed to have children? I’m just curious if that is what you meant, and if so, how you reconcile that?

  • holly

    You know what I appreciate about you, EE?  Well, many things, but for this comment at least 2. 

    1)  You’re not afraid of tough topics and
    2) You’re not chicken to say what you think.  That takes a lot of guts – particularly when you are going to be inviting a lot of opinion/feedback.  :)

    I really, really like this about you!  :)   And you do it all in a nice way – where those who might disagree with you aren’t afraid of ostracization.

  • lavenderlous

    Laying aside all scripture, religions, and morals, how hard is to see that the physical anatomy of like sexes does not fit, while opposite sexes beautifully fit together like a puzzle piece?

    If I had a pen of cows that needed breeding and I brought in two bulls to get the job done and they went for each other sexually…well, need I say anymore.

    • KatR

      Ok, so if if a heterosexual couple decides to go beyond putting tab A into slot B, would that be considered sin?

  • http://southernxyl.blogspot.com/ Laura

    As others have said, Jesus had plenty to say about how we need to treat each other, and gave us examples in the way he treated others.  I don’t like gay-bashing.  It’s  not loving and he never told us to engage in it, by word or by example.

    We heterosexuals have been doing it so wrong for so long – serial divorce and remarriage, infidelity, rape and coercive sex, and so forth – I don’t see that we get to take the high road and tell gay folks that they’re the sinners.  If marriage really meant one man, one woman for life (outside actual abuse, of course, I’m not talking about that) then I could see at least  talking about denying it to gay people.  But if we aren’t going to deny it to, say, Kim Kardashian after her stupid escapade, then I can’t see the point.  At all.

    I am hindered in coming to an understanding about this because I am not sexually attracted to other women at all.  I cannot put myself in the shoes of gay people.  That leads me to be, not judgmental, but humble enough not to tell them how they are to live their lives.

    …As to the scripture about Jesus saying that a man is to leave his parents and cleave to a wife, (a) he was talking about divorce, which is totally legal in civil law and not frowned upon by every church, and (b) plenty of men never cleave to a wife for one reason or another, and plenty of women nowadays never marry, now that women are able to support themselves as they could not in Jesus’s day, and that’s not thought to be a problem.  Paul even said it was preferable.  So I don’t think that scripture can be stretched to say that Jesus meant every man had to pair up with a woman, and vice versa.

  • Red

    This is honest, real and a much-needed conversation in the Christian church. Thank you. :)

    Just one question though….I’m not sure how I feel about the argument regarding two-gender-parent households. It seems to me that this could also be used as an argument against single people who can’t find a partner but desperately want to adopt a child.

    I realize that you are not trying to knock single parents, but if we are going to examine that part of the argument as it pertains to gay couples, we also have to realize that it will come to bear on other people in other situations, too.

    Just some thoughts. I really, really agree with this post though. I think people try to argue too much from Jesus’ silence, and I think the church is a little misled for believing that its own religious beliefs should dictate the laws of America. :/

  • Verity3

    Great post, EE. I agree with everything you wrote — except one. (Actually, though, it’s unusual for me to agree this much with such a long post!)

    “…I don’t believe the Christian church ought to retrofit our boundaries for sexual activity; ie. by ordaining openly gay clergy.”

    Not too long ago, I would have agreed with this statement. I simply don’t want to go to a church where they might teach something I don’t believe. So it’s a no-brainer, right?

    Problem is, I can’t help but notice that every church I go to, someone teaches something I don’t believe. And other people either agree with it, or enable it. And put the teachers and leaders up on pedastals at times, so that no one can disagree with them. And then the untouchable leaders are given free reign to spiritually abuse their followers… or not, if they should choose not to.

    So I also can’t help but notice I put up with an awful lot of false teaching.

    But doesn’t Scripture tell us to “expel the wicked man from among you!” (1Cor 5:13b, NIV). Well, yes. But to what kind of wickedness does this passage refer? (The whole chapter, that is… verses 1 through 13.) Quite a variety, actually: “sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler” (v. 11b).

    But there is another aspect of this particular case of wickedness that I have noticed only recently: it is the kind of wickedness that promotes PRIDE in other people, and possibly in the “wicked man” himself. (See v. 2.) There is not only a lack of repentence… there is open boasting.

    The question is, is there an intent to continue in something acknowledged as wrong? If there is a disagreement over right and wrong, there is a risk that a “stronger brother” could abuse his freedom. But if there is no disagreement… and one brother is continuing in what he agrees is sin anyway… doesn’t this rise to a whole new level?

    I am no longer prepared to say that what an openly, practicing gay clergy member (who disagrees with me as to whether homosexual acts are sinful) is doing rises to the the same level as an openly, practicing gossip (who agrees with me that gossip is wrong) announcing, “I probably shouldn’t say this, but I’m going to say it anyway!” It is the LATTER unrepentant wickedness that is more destructive, not the former. And it is the LATTER that is tolerated in every church I’ve been in, since I was old enough to notice.

    I have decided I ought to be able to respect the difference of opinion of an openly, practicing gay brother or sister in Christ enough to listen to him or her preach or teach, and take on myself the responsibility of discerning truth from falsehood… as I do for every other brother and sister in Christ.

    • Verity3

      (In case I didn’t make myself clear, I don’t think such willingness to respect a difference of opinion IS “retrofit[ting] our boundaries for sexual activity.”)

  • http://twitter.com/MInTheGap MInTheGap

    I agree with the differentiation between our personal responsibility and governmental responsibility.  I’m commanded to share the Gospel with all.  I know that Christ died for everyone, not just those that are personally attractive to me or agree with me.

    Christ’s commands were much more directed to the individual rather than the government.  For example, you will not find Christ telling you to vote, speaking of revolution, preaching about what government can/should do.  The point of Christ’s message is that there is a bigger kingdom, one that’s not of this world, and that we are pilgrims and strangers here.

    So, where does that leave citizens of a country where we must cast votes?  To me, if tasked to vote, I need to align my desires to God’s desires and thoughts to His.  He has clearly stated His opinion on a variety of topics.  As He has said, “Thou shalt not murder” if there was a bill making it illegal or harder to murder, I should vote for it.  If He says “Thou shalt not bear false witness”, I should vote for a bill that makes bearing false witness a punishable offense, even if the lie is “about sex” or some other thing that may not personally affect me.

    And this is where I have to be when it comes to homosexuality or same-sex marriage.  When God set up a government, He not only said “you shall not sleep with mankind like you do with womankind” He went further to say that it was an abomination.  I cannot believe that it’s an abomination then and it is not today.

    That doesn’t mean I can’t love the sinner or care for them– we care for many kinds of sinners and our good news is for everyone.  It does mean that on a governmental level I need to cast my vote where God would cast His.  And though God is love, He is also Holy– the most prolific appellation He gives to himself.

    Lastly, I’d like to take a parting shot at the concept that the sin of homosexuality is like all other sins.  In fact, it (and all the sexual sins) is actually different.  The New Testament says that fornication (sleeping with someone that is not one’s heterosexual partner) is different from other sins, for where non-sexual sins affect the outside, sexual sins affect the person themselves.

    It probably has to do with the concept of “joining one’s body to another” which is probably much deeper than any of us are aware.

  • Nancy

    I’m not entirely sure where I stand on this issue. I don’t believe that being homosexual is in and of itself sinful. I do believe that marriage is a sacrament, a holy union granted by God. Two homosexuals cannot partake of this sacrament. But the word “marriage” is more often used today in our society to mean legally joined. How can I be offended by a same sex couple using the term but not by a heterosexual atheist couple? And the only reason why the state cares at all about these legal unions and confers benefits to incentivize them is because the state sees committed couples as being beneficial to our society. Does a same sex couple who adopts and raises well adjusted children who become productive, contributing members of society provide any less benefit to the state than a similar opposite sex couple? What I struggle with is how same sex unions with all of the same legal benefits (and burdens) as opposite sex unions might impact religious persons and institutions. For example, is it OK to require the Catholic church to provide medical insurance coverage for the spouse of a gay employee? Does that force the Church to condone something it finds morally offensive and directly countering its faith teachings? When it comes to birth control coverage and abortaficient drugs, I strongly feel that it’s unconstitutional to require that sort of insurance coverage of the Catholic church (or Catholic individuals for that matter). But when it comes to “marriage” benefits this seems more ambiguous. By providing coverage for the gay spouse, the church isn’t exactly involved in marrying the two individuals, but by providing birth control coverage the church would be actively participating in distributing and enabling birth control. But is it likewise wrong, then, to require the church to “enable” gay unions? Maybe I see this as more like paying unto Cesar what he is owed despite the fact that he may be a sinner, while the birth control example is more like requiring the church to directly commit the sin. I hope this makes sense and doesn’t offend anyone. Thanks for letting me attempt to articulate my thoughts on this matter. I guess I see state recognized marriage as wholly separate from the holy sacrament of marriage. And while semantics are important, we already have had the word Marriage hijacked for many many years by the state.