Sunday, November 3, 2013

God Loves Gays

Homosexuality is a sin... that Jesus paid for. Just like my sins, and yours, and everyone else's.

In the bible, there are two perspectives on worthiness. One is that we are ALL unholy, and unclean, and there is nothing we can do to clean ourselves up. The second is that we are ALL holy and clean, joint-heirs with Christ.  Reconciliation of this paradox comes through accepting Jesus sacrifice, because he paid the price that we could never pay. Justification through grace.

What makes one sin unacceptable, and another sin covered? What licenses us to deny civil rights to certain sinners? If marriage is to be denied to homosexuals on biblical grounds, it should also be denied to everyone who has EVER had an affair, to everyone who got a divorce for any reason other than adultery, to everyone who has stolen, or told a lie, or back-talked their parents. There would be no such thing as marriage, but at least homosexuals couldn't corrupt our blessed institution, right?


We have no right to pick and choose what sins God hates. God hates ALL sins, but he loves ALL sinners. We have no right to pick and choose which sinners receive civil liberties. As a society, we have a social need to prosecute people for committing acts that do specific, identifiable harm to other specific individuals, but not to create laws that persecute individuals for committing acts that do not, even if we believe such acts harm themselves.

Denying that all God's children should be treated equally denies God's equal treatment of all his children. Targeting specific sins, and specific sinners, as being worthy of greater condemnation denies Jesus' sacrifice. Targeting homosexuals for exclusion from full membership in society denies the power of GOD.

You can be Christian, and you can oppose gay marriage, but you can't be both. Not at the same time.

Jesus paid for gay sinners too, praise God!!


  1. I know this will come up, but I did not address it because it would have distracted from the main point. There is an argument that homosexuals create social harm to society, and that their marriages and civil rights should be denied to them because of this social harm. That might be true (not my field of expertise, so I haven't read the studies), but the same argument would apply to adulterers and serial monogamists. There is no justification for applying that standard only to homosexuals.

  2. In our society, adultery IS a grounds for divorce--the injured spouse can sue for the right to marriage, to her at least, to be denied. And Bigamy is a crime. So there are exclusions for heterosexual unions as well.

    As for getting a divorce, Christ said we shouldn't, but we live in a fallen world and he allows a lesser law for now. I think the real problem starts with our crazy "fall in love and live happily ever after" culture, but that's for another day.

  3. Also, don't forget that Jesus said, "Go, and sin no more." Forgiveness isn't automatic; we need to do our part to sacrifice for God, to put off the natural man and become more like him.

  4. Jesus did say "Go, and sin no more." Immediately before that he said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." In this simple discourse, Jesus taught by clear example that the role or religion was to shift from upholding moral values through legal means to upholding moral values individually. A sinner's repentance is between them, their confessor, and the Lord.
    This discourse is about the role of religion in society, and the inherent incompatibility between the teachings of Jesus and denying basic civil rights to certain groups.
    The transitioning role of religion, away from maintaining the law, is further illustrated when Jesus was asked whether they should pay taxes. According to certain interpretations, the payment of taxes was a violation of Mosaic law. "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, and to God that which is God's." There is a clear separation between civic law and religious law, and it is no longer appropriate to base civic laws on religious norms.

    As for your point that adultery IS grounds for divorce, that is true. It is, and the injured spouse can sue BECAUSE of the the injury. This reinforces the point I made originally. The proper role of law is to limit behavior that causes injury to others, not to impose morality on others.



blogger templates | Make Money Online