Why might Christians affirm gay marriage?

I was asked in a comment on Jim Spiegel's blog (http://wisdomandfollyblog.com/2009/01/26/on-a-certain-irony-in-the-case-for-gay-rights/) to list some reasons that are given by Christians who view exclusive gay relationships as moral. I am responding here on my own blog because I feel I've already taken up too much space in Jim's comment section. :)

Below I try to answer Elliott's question. I try to faithfully represent some common argumentative moves among gay-affirming Christian writers (from my thus far limited reading experience).

Disclaimer: I am still learning on this issue, so please do not take the information here as authoritative.


1. It is pointed out that just as there are multiple expressions of heterosexual sexuality, there are multiple expressions of homosexual sexuality. Promiscuity, extra-marital affairs, and pornography are not exclusively found among gays and lesbians (nor, I might add, are certain sexual behaviors regarded by some as deviant and indeed harmful, including for example anal sex). Rather than condemning all sexual behavior as evil (while some respected figures in the historic Christian tradition have come very close to doing just that) Christians ought to recognize that some heterosexual behaviors are good, healthy, positive, productive, and beneficial while other heterosexual behaviors are destructive, harmful, immoral, and sinful. Sexually active gays and lesbians are often stereotyped as promiscuous and as people who routinely engage in harmful and deviant behaviors (anal sex, drug use). Gay men are often stereotyped as pedophiliacs. These stereotypes should be challenged. In considering the question: "Are all acts of sexual intimacy between same-sex partners immoral?" we should be aware of the diversity of such acts. It should not be concluded a priori that if some same-sex acts are immoral that therefore all same-sex acts are deserving of moral condemnation.

2. The burden of proof is placed upon those who would condemn all expressions of homosexuality to demonstrate that such acts are morally wrong and condemned by God in scripture in virtue of their being same-sex acts. It is often suggested that passages in the Old and New Testaments which explicitly speak against homosexuality speak against specific types of relationships (e.g., pedophilia), or against specific practices in specific cultural/religious contexts (e.g., idolatry and paganism), or against specific sex-acts (like anal intercourse in Leviticus).

3. Fellow Christians who are in long-term committed monogamous same-sex relationships are held up as evidence that such relationships are not obviously harmful and indeed may exemplify certain virtues which are praised and valued in heterosexual marriage relationships.


That's it for right now. I think I've answered Elliott's question. Elliott--and others--feel free to comment.

Let me point readers to two good resources on this topic:
1. One book I recently finished reading which I found quite helpful: Reasoning Together: A Conversation on Homosexuality by Mark Thiessen Nation and Ted Grimsrud (foreward by Tony and Peggy Campolo). Amazon. WorldCat. Ted Grimsrud's longer chapter in this book (his main argument for an inclusive stance) is available in full at his website, along with some shorter articles written for the Welcome Book series: http://peacetheology.net/homosexuality. (The Welcome Committee is an organization of "Mennonites Working to Increase Dialogue on Gay and Lesbian Inclusion": http://www.welcome-committee.info/). Thiessen Nation and Grimsrud are both teachers at Eastern Mennonite University (I believe Thiessen Nation teaches in the seminary and Grimsrud in the undergraduate program).


2. Articles by Justin and Ron at the Gay Christian Network website. Justin and Ron are both bible-believing Christians and gay men. Justin argues that God blesses same-sex marriages. Ron believes God calls gay Christians to lifelong celibacy.



------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

Revolutionary Subordination in Paul's Theology

Link: "Against Empire, A Yoderian Reading of Romans", by Ted Grimsrud at peacetheology.net

Big Ideas:
1. Paul reinforces Jesus' anti-Constantinian stance. "For Yoder, Paul does not lead away from Jesus’ messianic ethic. Jesus and Paul are not stage one and stage two of the development of Christian ethics that leads inevitably to Constantinianism. Rather, what is central to Jesus’ message remains central for Paul."

2. Justification in Pauline thought is social; justification in Romans and Galatians it is the same thing as reconciliation in Ephesians. Yoder says: "Paul cares not so much about systematic theological speculation about how human beings are to made acceptable to God, but rather the very concrete Roman situation in which Jew and Gentile, legalistic Christian and pagan Christian, needed to accept one another."

3. The Christian's relationship to the Powers is one of "revolutionary subordination". Christian community witnesses to the nations the truth and power of the gospel of the kingdom of God to free us from idolatry to the powers.


This idea of "revolutionary subordination" is something I'm interested in unpacking further. Also, I want to ask how my own socio-political context (as a privileged and empowered white male educated U.S. citizen who is registered to vote in a nation that affirms separation of church and state) affects my own application of Jesus' message to my present context. Surely there will be differences from Paul's context in the 1st century Roman Empire in which the state "church" was pagan worship of the emperor.


(There is nothing further to this post.)


------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.