XML FeedsOn Gays: Your Bible Translates Differently Than Mine
By T. Paine on Sep 12, 2012 | In Religion, Policy | 6 feedbacks »
In response to Burr Deming's
Conventions, Bill of Rights, Gay Rights, Racism Isn't Right
T. Paine, at Saving Common Sense, tries so hard to defend discrimination against gay marriage. He quotes Catholic authorities, which pretty much proves nothing to those not already convinced. Then, unexpectedly to Christians like me, he quotes Jesus himself. Seems Jesus thought married men and women should stay married. Which proves, dontcha see, that Jesus hated gay marriage. Seems like a fun game to me. Let's see. Jesus liked figs enough to kill a fig tree that had run out of figs. Since he liked figs, he hated lobsters, right? Also, you can find lots of scripture, Red Lobster restaurants being specifically forbidden in Leviticus 11:11 and Deuteronomy 14:10.
- Burr Deming, September 8, 2012
Mr. Deming, my first knee-jerk reaction to your statement that I was trying “so hard to defend discrimination against gay marriage” was to be annoyed. But then, figuratively I took a step backward and read your comments as objectively as I possibly was able. I concluded that you are right in your original thesis. I absolutely am defending discrimination against gay marriage. I know we aren’t supposed to be discriminatory towards anyone or anything in these morally relativistic days, but as I have repeatedly stated, I am evidently an anachronistic throwback to earlier generations when society still had the moral bearings to call out a wrong.
As a Christian, I am called to be discriminatory. Not necessarily with the connotation of the word as it is used in today’s politically correct culture, but in the actual meaning of the word. I am supposed to discriminate between what God tells me is wrong and sinful and what He tells me is good and of Him. Yes, I often fall far short of that goal and am quite sinful myself, but I do make the effort typically to do as He would have me do.
All of that said, I get the impression that you either skimmed my post while reading it and thereby missed my point, or you intentionally misstated my point because it disagrees with your views, or perhaps my writing was so unclear as for you to be unsure what my point even was. (Being as you are a gentleman and an honest man, I am inclined to think the second of those possibilities is the least likely.)
It seems that the main point you got out of my post was that “Jesus thought married men and women should stay married.” While this is true and was indeed part of the scripture I quoted, I think you missed the bigger and more relevant point I was making, sir. Just in case you missed it the first time, the truly relevant part form my post of why “gay marriage” is incompatible with Christianity is this:
Let’s look closely at what Jesus said next: “Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 19:12). The implications of Christ’s words are absolute then. A man’s ability to be united to his wife sexually is was what made him a candidate for marriage. If he was unable to achieve sexual union because of a birth defect, castration, or a vow of celibacy, then marriage was not his vocation. Consequently it would seem that the foundation of Jesus’ whole argument is indeed biological. Unless “a man” and “his wife … become one flesh,” there is no valid marriage. For Jesus, and for anyone committed to His teachings, it is impossible to speak of a “Christian same-sex marriage.” Jesus’ words rule it out absolutely.
Figs being served at Red Lobster Restaurants aside, I am not being hateful in anyway. I am being discriminatory against what my Lord has called sinful. I am stating what Christ himself said was a valid Christian marriage. Homosexual marriage is not compatible. If you still think that is hateful, than I can only assume that your Bible is quite a different translation than is mine, my friend.
In addition to his worthy efforts here, T. Paine writes for his own site, where Bibles are translated with exactitude and Red Lobster Restaurants are welcomed.
Please visit Saving Common Sense.
Trackback address for this post
Trackback URL (right click and copy shortcut/link location)
6 comments
"A man’s ability to be united to his wife sexually is was what made him a candidate for marriage. If he was unable to achieve sexual union because of a birth defect, castration, or a vow of celibacy, then marriage was not his vocation."
Ah, so you must oppose marriage for not only homosexuals and non-Christians, but for those who cannot have or do not want to have children. I wonder how that would go over in the United States.
To be a candidate for marriage, one need only be able to "unite" with another sexually. According to you, this is only possible for a man and a woman.
However, the marriage itself is only valid if the couple (1) consummates it and (2) is open to the possibility of producing a child.
If this is all true, please answer the following:
Do you oppose marriage for couples that do not consummate their marriage?
Do you oppose marriage for couples that are not open to the possibility of producing a child? I am part of such a couple, so I am eager to know.
Why is "sexual unification" only possible between a man and a woman?
If marriage need not be restricted to Christians, then why must we, as a secular and diverse society that has made marriage a secular institution, abide by Christian (specifically Catholic) rules for marriage?
Let me re-phrase the previous question so my purpose is clear:
My wedding was entirely secular: it did not take place in a church, there was no priest or minister, and there was no mention of any deity whatsoever. My marriage was therefore completely divorced from Christianity. It was essentially just a verbal agreement to stay together (which anyone can make) and a related legal contract (which is secular, not religious). Why do you think that you have any business telling other people that they cannot get married when their marriage has nothing to do with your religion?
You do not want to make atheism illegal. You are content to let God sort it out once atheists die. You ought to be content to let God sort out "valid" marriages from "invalid" marriages--not interfere with secular agreements that do not involve you.
I simply wished to point out what constituted a sacramental Christian marriage as defined by Christ himself. This definition necessarily precludes gay marriage. Yes, other marriages, including your secular one, are valid as civil marriages. That is fine. I have no right, power, nor intention to regulate such things. I have no right or power to regulate gay marriage either. I simply am against the concept of gay marriage for societal/sociological reasons, as well as the fact that my faith has instructed me so. If gay marriage were ever to appear on a ballot before me, I would be obliged to vote against it accordingly.
My purpose was to state my opinion and point out the factually erroneous argument of Christians justifying gay marriage as being acceptable by Christian theology. Such is not the case, even without resorting to “Sopticing” – errr, I mean “Breitbarting”.
I can't speak for Ryan, but for me it's not the "statement" or the words and explanation of one's faith that upsets me. In fact, I am glad to read it. I was having a conversation with a good friend about this issue and how I (as someone who is practically an atheist) cannot understand the religious opposition to equality. On one level, I see that that is what one religion may tell some of its followers. But what I can't understand is how that mindset jives with the Constitution. So thank you for trying to explain it to me. What upsets me is the desire to vote against denying other people their fundamental rights (I'll leave the fact that it's even on the ballot for another time). If you truly believe that you have no right to regulate civil marriage, why would you vote to deny other people their fundamental rights? Does your religion (please remember, I am practically an atheist. I am not asking to be sarcastic, I'm asking because I really don't know) also tell you that it is your religions obligation to prevent other people from fully enjoying their lives if their enjoyment conflicts with how you have chosen to live your life? Does your religion tell you that you can only live in a country that is governed by your religion?
Leave a comment
| « Breitbarting the Messiah | Remembering Victims of Collective Hatred » |
