PSA: My response to Gay at Messiah article comments

Here's the article site.

Ajay -- what evidence do you have that Republicans, or right-wing movements, have been protectors of "Judeo-Christian influence" in American society? Does free-market capitalism sound like the effective communism in the early church? Or does it sound more like the money-lenders and sellers in the marketplace that are condemned not only by the OT, but by Jesus himself (who never uttered a word on homosexuality)?

I think that if you check your American history, you'll find the rise of the religious right, of which I assume you're a part, is only recent, and is not without its biblical issues. Republicans are not God's chosen party. Then or now.

Dmm, in the epistles, Paul "gives in" to the idea that people might need to get married, even though he says it's better to remain unmarried -- he, not God -- because they may be weak. In those times, marriage was much more a practical matter, and much more likely to happen by the time a person was college-age; our times are much different. We probably DO have more unmarried people than they had in Paul's area in Paul's time, because we have more choice than we used to. People are basing marriages on very different factors than they used to, including romantic feelings of love. I'm not saying this necessarily changes the stance on extramarital sex, but it should be considered.

At the same time, your argument is more compelling than the arguments of people who say "you can't have sex outside of marriage! And gay people can't get married!" and then use that same argument to support their position against gay marriage. It's a silly, solipsistic way of thinking. If we'd LET gay people get married, they could have sex in the bounds of marriage as straight people are supposed to. If we're not going to let them, well, then what are they supposed to do? At least your answer -- remain permanently celibate -- makes some measure of sense. But it lacks any measure of the practicality of Paul's, and his advice on marriage was meant for a much different time in a different social situation.

I don't think the issue of the sexual slippery slope is a valid one, either. Homosexuality is not the same as pedaresty, which is not the same as bestiality, anymore than heterosexuality is either of those. That's why we have different words for those things. I understand that from a strict evangelical viewpoint, tainting yourself with any "sin" automatically leads to more and more, and more terrible, "sin," but I'd like to have more than a Wikipedia citation as proof that homosexuality and bestiality are somhow linked. (And then, that they are more linked than heterosexuality and bestiality. I doubt this is the case.)

As for Christians changing society, I'm not sure Jesus came to change society. Jesus seemed to focus on individuals, not policies, programs or Caesars. Yes, this leads to a change in society, and yes, Jesus threw over the tables of the money-lenders in the temples, but Jesus also told us to pay our taxes. And Jesus did not tell the Samaritan woman at the well "well, it's a good thing you're not gay, because then I couldn't forgive you." I'm sure he would have mentioned something if he'd meant that.

Love covers over a multitude of sins. I know I won't change minds, and I'm not trying to (Ajay), but as slave-masters used to use Scripture to justify keeping people as slaves (and believe they were right), and as I know we all agree we're imperfect people with a bit too much pride, I hope to persuade you, if you come to a crossroads decision, to err on the side of love. It's the only thing that never fails.