Is traditional marriage threatened by gay marriage?

[radical_logic]

Those who contend that traditional marriage is threatened by gay marriage need to address and refute the following argument.

(1). The existence of heterosexual marriages--for existing married heterosexual couples (henceforth HSC)--is not threatened by the existence of homosexual marriages.
(2). The existence of potential future heterosexual marriages--for unmarried HSC--is not threatened by the existence of homosexual marriages.
(3). The personal value of heterosexual marriages--for existing married HSC--is not threatened by the existence of homosexual marriages.
(4). The personal value of potential future heterosexual marriages--for unmarried HSC--is not threatened by the existence of homosexual marriages.
---------------------------
(5). Therefore, heterosexual marriages are not threatened by homosexual marriages.
(6). Therefore, traditional marriage is not threatened by gay marriage.

Those who declare (1) to be false must demonstrate that heterosexual marriages--for existing married HSC--could cease to exist simply because homosexual marriages exist. Who can make such an argument?

Those who declare (2) to be false must demonstrate that potential future heterosexual marriages--for unmarried HSC--might not exist simply because homosexual marriages exist. Who can make such an argument?

Those who declare (3) to be false must demonstrate that the personal value of heterosexual marriages--for existing married HSC--is threatened by homosexual marriages. Who can make such an argument?

Those who declare (4) to be false must demonstrate that the personal value of potential future heterosexual marriages--for unmarried HSC--would be threatened simply because homosexual marriages exist. Who can make such an argument?

Those who accept (1)-(4) but declare (5) to be false have a difficult task ahead of them: they must articulate the threat posed by heterosexual marriages to existing and potential heterosexual marriages--for existing married and unmarried HSC--not covered under (1)-(4). But what could that threat be? Who can articulate and demonstrate such a threat?

Those who accept (1)-(5) but declare (6) to be false need to articulate the distinction between the concept of heterosexual marriage and traditional marriage. Who can articulate and defend such a distinction?

[cnorman18]

IMO there's nothing new or enlightened about illicit gay sex sin. It's been going on since Sodom and Gomorrah ("Bronze Age"?).

Enough of this. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was not homosexuality. That has never been the view of Jewish tradition, nor is it supported by the Biblical text itself.

http://www.iwgonline.org/docs/sodom.html

Classical Jewish texts concur that God did *not* destroy Sodom and Gemorrah because their inhabitants were homosexual. Not at all. Rather, the cities were destroyed because the inhabitents were nasty, depraved, and uncompromisingly greedy. Classical Jewish writings affirm that the primary crimes of the Sodomites were, among others, terrible and repeated economic crimes, both against each other and to outsiders. Saying "God killed them because they were gay" is, to say the least, not the Jewish teaching on the subject.

Here is another point worth considering:

http://www.glow.cc/isa/sodom.htm

Note that judgment was determined on Sodom before the incident of the angel visitors at Lot's house.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah

Classical Jewish texts do not stress the homosexual aspect of the attitude of the inhabitants of Sodom as much as their cruelty and lack of hospitality to the "stranger." (See Jewish Encyclopedia on the importance of hospitality.) The people of Sodom were seen as guilty of many other significant sins. Rabbinic writings affirm that the Sodomites also committed economic crimes, blasphemy and bloodshed.

Finally, we have the testimony of the Bible itself:

Ezekiel 16:49-50:
"Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."

Jesus himself seems to induce that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah had to do with hospitality, not homosexuality:

Matthew 10:14-15:
"If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town."

There is much more at the links provided. Sodom and Gomorrah are entirely irrelevant to a debate about homosexuality.

[Cathar1950]

IMO there's nothing new or enlightened about illicit gay sex sin. It's been going on since Sodom and Gomorrah ("Bronze Age"?).

Enough of this. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was not homosexuality. That has never been the view of Jewish tradition, nor is it supported by the Biblical text itself.

http://www.iwgonline.org/docs/sodom.html

Classical Jewish texts concur that God did *not* destroy Sodom and Gemorrah because their inhabitants were homosexual. Not at all. Rather, the cities were destroyed because the inhabitents were nasty, depraved, and uncompromisingly greedy. Classical Jewish writings affirm that the primary crimes of the Sodomites were, among others, terrible and repeated economic crimes, both against each other and to outsiders. Saying "God killed them because they were gay" is, to say the least, not the Jewish teaching on the subject.

Here is another point worth considering:

http://www.glow.cc/isa/sodom.htm

Note that judgment was determined on Sodom before the incident of the angel visitors at Lot's house.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah

Classical Jewish texts do not stress the homosexual aspect of the attitude of the inhabitants of Sodom as much as their cruelty and lack of hospitality to the "stranger." (See Jewish Encyclopedia on the importance of hospitality.) The people of Sodom were seen as guilty of many other significant sins. Rabbinic writings affirm that the Sodomites also committed economic crimes, blasphemy and bloodshed.

Finally, we have the testimony of the Bible itself:

Ezekiel 16:49-50:
"Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."

Jesus himself seems to induce that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah had to do with hospitality, not homosexuality:

Matthew 10:14-15:
"If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town."

There is much more at the links provided. Sodom and Gomorrah are entirely irrelevant to a debate about homosexuality.

S & G have an odd place in the popular imagination.
How is it that the love and affection between two adult humans of the same sex is equated with the rape of strangers?
I was a common idea that calamity was the result of some sins of peoples and punishment. Job and others often are against such notions. It looks as if the cities were destroyed because of earthquakes and it shouldn't surprise us that later people seeing the ruins might imagine some sins committed by the people that caused their destruction so they made up stories. In the S & G stories it was the sin of non-hospitality. This kind of repetitive misunderstood popular idea is often found in the minds of the Bible believer is simply not Biblical.

[Easyrider]

IMO there's nothing new or enlightened about illicit gay sex sin. It's been going on since Sodom and Gomorrah ("Bronze Age"?).

Enough of this. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was not homosexuality. That has never been the view of Jewish tradition, nor is it supported by the Biblical text itself.

http://www.iwgonline.org/docs/sodom.html

Sure it is. Sodom and Gomorrah had many sins, but one of the main ones was homosexual sex. It's right there in your Tanakh.

The Levitical Law

(Leviticus 18:22; 20:13, NKJV)

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination."

"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

Pro-Gay Argument #1:

Sodom was destroyed because of the inhospitality of its citizens, not because of homosexuality.

Response:

The argument makes no sense in light of Lot's responses. His first response, "Don't do this wicked thing," could hardly apply to a simple request to "get to know" his guests. His second response is especially telling: he answered their demands by offering his two virgin daughters- another senseless gesture if the men wanted only a social knowledge of his guests. And why, if these men had innocent intentions, was the city destroyed for inhospitality? Whose rudeness was being judged - Lots', or Sodom's citizens?

The theory raises more questions than it answers. While Boswell and Bailey are correct in pointing out the seriousness of inhospitality in Biblical times, inhospitality alone cannot account for the severity of Lot's response to the men, or for the judgment that soon followed.

Pro-Gay Argument #3:

The real sins of Sodom, according to Ezekiel 16:49, were that it was "arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." These have nothing to do with homosexuality.

Response:

Again, the argument is partially true. When Sodom was destroyed, homosexuality was only a part-or symptom-of its wickedness. Romans Chapter One gives a similar illustration, describing the generally corrupt condition of humanity, while citing homosexuality as a symptom of that corruption. But Ezekiel also says of the Sodomites: "They were haughty and did detestable things before me" (16:50). The sexual nature of these "detestable" things is suggested in 2 Peter 2:6-7:

If he [God] condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men...

And again in Jude 7:

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Dr. Bruce Metzger of Princeton Theological Seminary mentions other references to Sodom's sexual immorality in 3 Maccabees 2:5: "the people of Sodom who acted arrogantly, who were notorious for their vices." And again in Jubilees 16:6: "the uncleanness of the Sodomites."[79]

The pro-gay interpretation of Sodom's destruction has some merit: homosexual rape was attempted, and the Sodomites were certainly guilty of sins other than homosexuality. But in light of the number of men willing to join in the rape, and the many other references, both Biblical and extra-Biblical, to Sodom's sexual sins, it is likely homosexuality was widely practiced among the Sodomites. It is also likely that the sin for which they are named was one of many reasons judgment finally fell on them.

http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/dallas.html#Scriptural

Jesus himself seems to induce that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah had to do with hospitality, not homosexuality:

Matthew 10:14-15:
"If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town."

Jesus on Homosexuality

Jesus is God (many scriptures). As God, Jesus is the one who gave Moses the Levitical law against gay sex to begin with; and he's the one who inspires all Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), including prohibitions against gay sex in Romans 1:26-27 and I Corinthians 6:9-10. etc.

[TheMessage]

Easyrider, let's assume that homosexuality is a sin. Why should it be illegal? Taking the "lord's" name in vain is also a sin, arguably a bigger one, yet we don't see any Christian majorities butting heads with the first amendment.

It's a harmless act, one whose consequences only affect the individual, the same as saying "Fuck God". If that's not illegal why should gay marriage be?


*Note that I don't actually consider homosexuality to be wrong in any way, shape or form, my original assumption is just that... an assumption for the sake of argument.

[Jester]

I'd love to jump in, but should probably give a general statement about my opinion before I begin:
I have some small reservations about the effect homosexual relationships have on self-actualization and familial development from a psychological standpoint, but also have a lot of doubt about the idea that the Bible condemns the practice.

(Leviticus 18:22; 20:13, NKJV)

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination."

"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

This is an accurate quotation, though I would point out a commonly mentioned fact that this verse seems to have been taken far more seriously than the command to avoid mixing types of thread in our clothing. Most consider the latter to have been fulfilled, and not relevant to the New Covenant. Is there a reason to believe that this is not the case with homosexuality?
Much more importantly is the context.
If you read Leviticus 18, you'll find a long list of commandments about sexual purity, followed by a comment against human sacrifice in verse 21, then the aforementioned warning against homosexual acts. As homosexual behavior was often equated with ritual sex with pagan priests, this passage looks a lot more like it is condemning idolatry than homosexuality.

The issue of temple prostitutes is also a consideration for Leviticus 20:13. Assuming that it is not the issue, I would add that homosexual marriage was not practiced in this culture. This is not a condemnation of homosexual marriage, then, but of adultery and/or fornication. It is perfectly understandable that some people were saying "it's not adultery so long as it's not another woman", which is why the Bible has to give commands about all sorts of weird sexual acts.
I don't claim to have a conclusive argument on this one, but don't really see this as warranting the kind of reaction against homosexuality that we've made. Simply, we can't say much about what the Bible does or doesn't say about homosexual marriage because it didn't exist in that culture.

Pro-Gay Argument #1:

Sodom was destroyed because of the inhospitality of its citizens, not because of homosexuality.

Response:

The argument makes no sense in light of Lot's responses. His first response, "Don't do this wicked thing," could hardly apply to a simple request to "get to know" his guests. His second response is especially telling: he answered their demands by offering his two virgin daughters- another senseless gesture if the men wanted only a social knowledge of his guests. And why, if these men had innocent intentions, was the city destroyed for inhospitality? Whose rudeness was being judged - Lots', or Sodom's citizens?

It is very possible that the men on Sodom wanted to rape the angels not because they were men, but because they were angels: the twisted idea being that they were something unusual and possibly that this might be a way of stealing power. Surely, I don't think that we can conclude that if the angels happened to be female God would not have been displeased. The fact that these men were more than willing to use violence to get what they want shows that there were many horrible things going on here. It is simply not possible to draw a comment about homosexuality from this story.
Simply, we cannot assume that everything they did is automatically wrong just because they were corrupt.

Pro-Gay Argument #3:

The real sins of Sodom, according to Ezekiel 16:49, were that it was "arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." These have nothing to do with homosexuality.

Response:

Again, the argument is partially true. When Sodom was destroyed, homosexuality was only a part-or symptom-of its wickedness. Romans Chapter One gives a similar illustration, describing the generally corrupt condition of humanity, while citing homosexuality as a symptom of that corruption. But Ezekiel also says of the Sodomites: "They were haughty and did detestable things before me" (16:50). The sexual nature of these "detestable" things is suggested in 2 Peter 2:6-7:

If he [God] condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men...

And again in Jude 7:

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

This is again a bit of an interpretive stretch. Is the sexual perversion homosexuality? An attempt at rape? An attempt at raping angels? Something not directly mentioned?
It is very possible to see an anti-homosexual message here, I'll grant you, but I don't see that it is at all certain.

Dr. Bruce Metzger of Princeton Theological Seminary mentions other references to Sodom's sexual immorality in 3 Maccabees 2:5: "the people of Sodom who acted arrogantly, who were notorious for their vices." And again in Jubilees 16:6: "the uncleanness of the Sodomites."[79]

The pro-gay interpretation of Sodom's destruction has some merit: homosexual rape was attempted, and the Sodomites were certainly guilty of sins other than homosexuality. But in light of the number of men willing to join in the rape, and the many other references, both Biblical and extra-Biblical, to Sodom's sexual sins, it is likely homosexuality was widely practiced among the Sodomites. It is also likely that the sin for which they are named was one of many reasons judgment finally fell on them.

Psychologists will tell you that rape is very different from sex, and doesn't necessarily involve sexual attraction, but is fueled instead by a need for power over an individual (which is the case with most all prison rape).
God, who knew this long before we did, would have been angry about the selfish attempt at domination, knowing that this wasn't a matter of sexual attraction.

Jesus himself seems to induce that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah had to do with hospitality, not homosexuality:

Jesus is God (many scriptures). As God, Jesus is the one who gave Moses the Levitical law against gay sex to begin with; and he's the one who inspires all Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), including prohibitions against gay sex in Romans 1:26-27 and I Corinthians 6:9-10. etc.

This assumes, however, that the law is really against homosexual acts.

Okay, final note.
I can't claim to care all that much about this issue, but feel that this should be the case for anyone who isn't dealing with this in his/her life (or that of a loved one). The Bible itself devotes very little time to homosexuality, preferring to speak a great deal about other more important issues.
Even under the assumption that a homosexual marriage is sinful, I have serious issues with how the church has treated these people. We seem to be willing to forgive almost any other sin, but, in spite of Christ's loud-and-clear stance against judging others, we don't feel the need to show homosexuals any love or compassion whatsoever. Whether or not homosexuality is wrong, this is. I feel that those of us in the church owe homosexuals (and a long list of other people) a lot of apologies. I think that those who believe it to be wrong would have a much easier time convincing others if they did so in a more loving way.

[Scotracer]

Easyrider, why are you assuming Jesus = god since he never says he IS god? Why on earth would god pray to himself...and in 3rd person too! It doesn't make any sense.

Jesus was just like many other claimed messiahs - the one true prophet of the sun god.

[Jester]

Easyrider, why are you assuming Jesus = god since he never says he IS god? Why on earth would god pray to himself...and in 3rd person too! It doesn't make any sense.

Jesus was just like many other claimed messiahs - the one true prophet of the sun god.

He does, according to the Bible (John 10:30).
If you mean to question the validity of the Bible, that is your right, but isn't really pertinent to this line of debate, as we are discussing how best to interpret the Bible.

[Scotracer]

Easyrider, why are you assuming Jesus = god since he never says he IS god? Why on earth would god pray to himself...and in 3rd person too! It doesn't make any sense.

Jesus was just like many other claimed messiahs - the one true prophet of the sun god.

He does, according to the Bible (John 10:30).
If you mean to question the validity of the Bible, that is your right, but isn't really pertinent to this line of debate, as we are discussing how best to interpret the Bible.

"I am one with God" (depends on the translation) could mean loads of things but it follows with all his other statements that he is the sole prophet to god - he and god have the same purpose, the same goal for life. But again this is interpretation! Almost everything in that bloody book has to be argued over.

[Cathar1950]

Easyrider, why are you assuming Jesus = god since he never says he IS god? Why on earth would god pray to himself...and in 3rd person too! It doesn't make any sense.

Jesus was just like many other claimed messiahs - the one true prophet of the sun god.

He does, according to the Bible (John 10:30).
If you mean to question the validity of the Bible, that is your right, but isn't really pertinent to this line of debate, as we are discussing how best to interpret the Bible.

"I am one with God" (depends on the translation) could mean loads of things but it follows with all his other statements that he is the sole prophet to god - he and god have the same purpose, the same goal for life. But again this is interpretation! Almost everything in that bloody book has to be argued over.

I think it is the most obvious interpretation that what the author meant was that Jesus and God were in accord. Even the authors having Jesus say that if you saw him you saw the Father need only mean that he represented the Father just as any ancient king represented their god.
Reading the other gospels it is unlikely Jesus ever taught or said the things in the Gospel of John. The words of Jesus look like the authors invention, or their community expressing their beliefs. It seem that you can't be to careful what you attribute to Jesus and what should be attributed to followers. Even in ancient schools the teacher was given credit for the school and what they produced.

[Easyrider]

Easyrider, let's assume that homosexuality is a sin. Why should it be illegal? Taking the "lord's" name in vain is also a sin, arguably a bigger one, yet we don't see any Christian majorities butting heads with the first amendment.

It's a harmless act, one whose consequences only affect the individual, the same as saying "F+ck God". If that's not illegal why should gay marriage be?

Sin is not harmless. It brings God's disfavor on men and nations. In due time it can also bring divine judgment.