Democrat Senatorial candidate James Talarico is hitting Christianity as hard as he can. To me, it seems laughable but you truly never know how these things are landing with others. He explains that abortion and same sex marriage are never mentioned by Jesus. Well, Jesus also never mentioned rape, shooting fentanyl into your veins, or securities fraud, but does Talarico really wanna’ argue Jesus is morally neutral on those issues as well?

He says we’ll be judged by how we treat other people. I think this person would agree as well.

Really? That’s the argument? That’s what passes for profound moral reasoning in 2026?

Let me ask you something. Do you honestly believe that if Jesus didn’t explicitly namedrop a particular sin in the four Gospels, it gets a free pass? That silence equals approval?

Are we supposed to conclude those things are morally neutral because the Son of God didn’t single them out by name? Of course not. That would be insane. But somehow, when it comes to abortion or redefining marriage, the same people who mock biblical authority suddenly become hyper-literalists?

Come on. It’s a dodge. It’s a cheap rhetorical trick designed to shut down discussion and make traditional Christians look like fanatics for believing the whole Bible, not just the red letter parts.

Let’s get real about what Jesus actually did say.

He didn’t come to abolish the Law—he came to fulfill it. Matthew 5:17–18. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”

The Old Testament explicitly condemns homosexual acts (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13). It protects unborn life (Exodus 21:22–25 treats harming a fetus as a serious crime). Jesus upheld the Law. He didn’t repeal it. He intensified its moral demands.

And when Jesus talked about marriage? He went straight back to Genesis. Matthew 19:4–6. “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Male and female. One flesh. That’s the design. That’s the boundary. Jesus wasn’t ambiguous. He was reaffirming the created order. Gay marriage? That’s a direct contradiction of what He just described as God’s original plan. Pretending otherwise requires ignoring what He actually said while fixating on what He didn’t say in a soundbite.

On abortion? Jesus condemned “porneia,” sexual immorality in general (Mark 7:21–23). It’s a term that, in the first-century Jewish context, covered every sexual sin outside male-female marriage condemned in the Torah, including same-sex acts. But more broadly, He called children precious, said harming them brings woe (Matthew 18:6), and treated the unborn as fully human (Luke 1:41–44, John the Baptist leaps in the womb). The early Church, guided by the apostles, unanimously condemned abortion as murder. You think they got that from nowhere?

Here’s the deeper point the people pushing this line never want to admit: they’re not actually interested in what Jesus said. They’re interested in what Jesus didn’t say, because it gives them permission to ignore what the rest of Scripture teaches and what the Church has always believed.

It’s selective literalism masquerading as humility. “Jesus was silent, so I get to rewrite morality.” No. Jesus spoke with absolute authority about the things that mattered most. And when He was silent on specifics, He endorsed the moral framework He inherited and fulfilled, not some modern reinvention.

So the next time someone hits you with “Jesus never mentioned abortion or gay marriage,” just smile and ask: “He also never mentioned internet porn, fentanyl trafficking, or deepfake revenge videos. Does that mean those are morally neutral too?”

Didn’t think so.

The argument isn’t about what Jesus said or didn’t say. It’s about whether we’re willing to follow Him at all or just the parts that make us comfortable. That’s the real question. And deep down, everybody knows it.

One final question. I wonder because Jesus never explicitly said it’s bad to go on the Colbert Show and attempt to twist Christianity into something that can serve you is evil. Not specifically. But he did say, “Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.” So there’s that.