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?

[Easyrider]

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.

Hello, Jester. Thanks for your input. Many of the arguments for and against gay sex are in the following site, including several that address your views above (i.e. idolatry, etc.). So rather than take up a ton of cyberspace, here's the link:

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

[Easyrider]

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.

Here's something that can help you out on that:

http://www.carm.org/christianity/christ ... ne/trinity

You said Jesus never says he is God? No offense, but have you read the entire Bible?

Did Jesus Claim to be God?

Among the religious leaders who have attained a large following throughout history, Jesus Christ is unique in the fact that He alone claimed to be God in human flesh. A common misconception is that some or many of the leaders of the world's religions made similar claims, but this is simply not the case.

Buddha did not claim to be God; Moses never said that he was Yahweh; Mohammed did not identify himself to be Ahura Mazda. Yet Jesus, the carpenter from Nazareth, said that he who has seen him (Jesus) has seen the Father (John 14:9).

The claims of Christ are many and varied. He said that He existed before Abraham (John 8:58), and that He was equal with the Father (John 14:9).

The New Testament equated Jesus as the creator of the universe (John 1:3), and that He is the one who holds everything together (Colossians 1:17). The apostle Paul says that God was manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16, KJV), and John the evangelist says that "the Word was God" (John 1:1). The united testimony of Jesus and the writers of the New Testament is that He was more than mere man; He was God.

Not only did His friends notice that He claimed to be God, but so did His enemies as well. There may be some doubt today among the skeptics who refuse to examine the evidence, but there was no doubt on the part of the Jewish authorities.

When Jesus asked them why they wanted to stone Him, they replied, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God" (John 10:33, NASB).

This fact separates Jesus from the other religious figures. In the major religions of the world, the teachings -- not the teacher -- are all-important.

Confucianism is a set of teachings; Confucius is not important. Islam is the revelation of Allah, with Mohammed being the prophet, and Buddhism emphasizes the principles of the Buddha and not Buddha himself. This is especially true of Hinduism, where there is no historic founder.
However, at the center of Christianity is the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus did not just claim to be teaching mankind the truth; He claimed that He was the truth (John 14:6).

What Jesus taught is not the important aspect of Christianity, but what is important is who Jesus was. Was He the Son of God? Is He the only way a person can reach God? This was the claim He made for Himself.

Suppose this very night the President of the United States appeared on all the major networks and proclaimed that "I am God Almighty. I have the power to forgive sin. I have the authority to raise my life back from the dead."

He would be quickly and quietly shut off the air, led away, and replaced by the Vice-President. Anybody who would dare make such claims would have to be either out of his mind or a liar, unless he was God.

This is exactly the case with Jesus. He clearly claimed all these things and more. If He is God, as He claimed, we must believe in Him, and if He is not, then we should have nothing to do with Him. Jesus is either Lord of all or not Lord at all.

Yes, Jesus claimed to be God. Why should anyone believe it? After all, merely claiming to be something does not make it true. Where's the evidence that Jesus is God?

The Bible gives various reasons, including miracles and fulfilled prophecy, that are intended to convince us that Jesus is the one whom He said He was (John 20:30, 31). The main reason, or the sign which Jesus Himself said would demonstrate that He was the Son of God, was His resurrection from the dead.

When asked for a sign from the religious leaders, Jesus replied, "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:40, RSV).

In another place He said, when asked for a sign, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up . . . but he spoke of the temple of his body" (John 2:19, 21). The ability to raise His life back from the dead was the sign that separates Him not only from all other religious leaders, but also from anyone else who has ever lived.

Anyone wishing to refute the case for Christianity must explain away the story of the resurrection. Therefore, according to the Bible, Jesus proves to be the Son of God by coming back from the dead (Romans 1:4). The evidence is overwhelming that Jesus did rise from the grave, and it is this fact that proves Jesus to be God.

This is an excerpt from the book, "Answers to Tough Questions," by Josh McDowell and Don Stewart.

[Goat]

This is an excerpt from the book, "Answers to Tough Questions," by Josh McDowell and Don Stewart.

Of course, this does not address the points Scouter made, but is merely the passionate rhetoric of a believer. It does not address what is known as 'context', nor
does it address what the passages brought up actually says.

What are your thoughts, and not the random preaching from a badly thought out and poor scholarship of some apologists?

[Cathar1950]

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.

I take sin as being harmful not harmful because it is sin or some imaginary disfavor of a small selective interpretation from a few passages that are in question and disagreed upon.
Why would this bring God disfavor? Why would this be any relevance except to Jews and some Christians?
Why doesn't God like it any more then he likes or dislikes anythuing else?

[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.

Here's something that can help you out on that:

http://www.carm.org/christianity/christ ... ne/trinity

You said Jesus never says he is God? No offense, but have you read the entire Bible?

Did Jesus Claim to be God?

Among the religious leaders who have attained a large following throughout history, Jesus Christ is unique in the fact that He alone claimed to be God in human flesh. A common misconception is that some or many of the leaders of the world's religions made similar claims, but this is simply not the case.

Buddha did not claim to be God; Moses never said that he was Yahweh; Mohammed did not identify himself to be Ahura Mazda. Yet Jesus, the carpenter from Nazareth, said that he who has seen him (Jesus) has seen the Father (John 14:9).

The claims of Christ are many and varied. He said that He existed before Abraham (John 8:58), and that He was equal with the Father (John 14:9).

The New Testament equated Jesus as the creator of the universe (John 1:3), and that He is the one who holds everything together (Colossians 1:17). The apostle Paul says that God was manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16, KJV), and John the evangelist says that "the Word was God" (John 1:1). The united testimony of Jesus and the writers of the New Testament is that He was more than mere man; He was God.

Not only did His friends notice that He claimed to be God, but so did His enemies as well. There may be some doubt today among the skeptics who refuse to examine the evidence, but there was no doubt on the part of the Jewish authorities.

When Jesus asked them why they wanted to stone Him, they replied, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God" (John 10:33, NASB).

This fact separates Jesus from the other religious figures. In the major religions of the world, the teachings -- not the teacher -- are all-important.

Confucianism is a set of teachings; Confucius is not important. Islam is the revelation of Allah, with Mohammed being the prophet, and Buddhism emphasizes the principles of the Buddha and not Buddha himself. This is especially true of Hinduism, where there is no historic founder.
However, at the center of Christianity is the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus did not just claim to be teaching mankind the truth; He claimed that He was the truth (John 14:6).

What Jesus taught is not the important aspect of Christianity, but what is important is who Jesus was. Was He the Son of God? Is He the only way a person can reach God? This was the claim He made for Himself.

Suppose this very night the President of the United States appeared on all the major networks and proclaimed that "I am God Almighty. I have the power to forgive sin. I have the authority to raise my life back from the dead."

He would be quickly and quietly shut off the air, led away, and replaced by the Vice-President. Anybody who would dare make such claims would have to be either out of his mind or a liar, unless he was God.

This is exactly the case with Jesus. He clearly claimed all these things and more. If He is God, as He claimed, we must believe in Him, and if He is not, then we should have nothing to do with Him. Jesus is either Lord of all or not Lord at all.

Yes, Jesus claimed to be God. Why should anyone believe it? After all, merely claiming to be something does not make it true. Where's the evidence that Jesus is God?

The Bible gives various reasons, including miracles and fulfilled prophecy, that are intended to convince us that Jesus is the one whom He said He was (John 20:30, 31). The main reason, or the sign which Jesus Himself said would demonstrate that He was the Son of God, was His resurrection from the dead.

When asked for a sign from the religious leaders, Jesus replied, "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:40, RSV).

In another place He said, when asked for a sign, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up . . . but he spoke of the temple of his body" (John 2:19, 21). The ability to raise His life back from the dead was the sign that separates Him not only from all other religious leaders, but also from anyone else who has ever lived.

Anyone wishing to refute the case for Christianity must explain away the story of the resurrection. Therefore, according to the Bible, Jesus proves to be the Son of God by coming back from the dead (Romans 1:4). The evidence is overwhelming that Jesus did rise from the grave, and it is this fact that proves Jesus to be God.

This is an excerpt from the book, "Answers to Tough Questions," by Josh McDowell and Don Stewart.

I really was under the illusion that this was a debate site where the members debated rather than work as semi-sentient search engines. Thanks for clearing that up. See Easyrider I (and I hazard a bet many members feel the same) I really don't understand what YOU think...only what some random apologists believe. It really does make a debate hard when you hide behind 16 mountains of quotes and excerpts.

And no, I haven't read the entire bible - only sections that would have any scientific merit or relevance (or at least those which Creationists say do).

Still, all the quotes in your Copy-Paste job still don't categorically have Jesus saying he was god - my previous point would still cover them (that he was the sole prophet of the sun god). I for one hold the supposed prophecy fulfilment with very little authority since the prophecies were written before Jesus' time (it may appear an obvious remark but it has implications) and that he himself knew of them! And so did the writers of the New Testament. Also, how on earth can what someone says (i.e. Jesus saying the stuff that the Gospels quote of him) be carried properly for many decades? Hell, that's Chinese whispers gone mental - unless these were carefully documented then the chances of what Mr Jesus said being accurate within the NT are slim - to say the least.

[Easyrider]

I really was under the illusion that this was a debate site where the members debated rather than work as semi-sentient search engines. Thanks for clearing that up.

I get links all the time, plus massive cut & pastes, so I guess you should get used to it. Plus, there was pertinent material there that answered your questions & claims. Did you read it - do you understand the Biblical basis for the Trinity? If you did you would see Jesus wasn't praying to himself. OK on that?

And no, I haven't read the entire bible -

Could I ask a favor then, and please research the basics on the web (i.e. "basics" being the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and all those issues, so they don't clog up the various forums. Or, when I feel the compulsion, I'll provide something for you.

Still, all the quotes in your Copy-Paste job still don't categorically have Jesus saying he was god - my previous point would still cover them (that he was the sole prophet of the sun god).

Go back and see my previous post to you with the part that started with "Did Jesus Claim to be God." You must have glossed right over it. Why?

I for one hold the supposed prophecy fulfilment with very little authority since the prophecies were written before Jesus' time (it may appear an obvious remark but it has implications) and that he himself knew of them! And so did the writers of the New Testament.

So, Jesus purposefully chose to be crucified, etc., to fulfill the Messianic prophecies? Really? You mean he himself chose that he would be born in Bethlehem? You mean he controlled the sun too, i.e.

THE SUN DARKENED AT NOON

Circa 750 B.C.

According to Amos 1:1, Amos prophesied during the reigns of Uzziah, king of Judah (767-739 B.C.), and Jeroboam, king of Israel (782-753 B.C.). The name "Amos" is derived from the Hebrew term meaning, "lift a burden," or "burden-bearer" (note Isaiah 9:4, speaking of the coming Messiah as one who would carry our burdens, and also Matthew 11:28). His calling by God was to foretell of pending judgments upon a number of surrounding nations, and particularly of a coming judgment upon Israel. As is common with other Biblical prophets, along with the promise of impending judgment, God also gave Amos a glimpse of events that would soon occur in the life of the coming Messiah, though the significance of what was prophesied may or may not have been made known to Amos. And so it is in the Old Testament book of Amos that we find a prophecy that for many centuries was looked upon with wonder and curiosity:

"'In that day,' declares the Sovereign Lord, 'I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight....I will make that time like mourning for an only son, and the end of it like a bitter day.'" (Amos 8:9-10)

It probably wasn't until the day of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in 32 A.D. that the prophecy of Amos took on clarity and meaning, for in Matthew 27:45 Jesus had just been nailed to the cross when the Bible records:

"From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land."

Just as the "Star of Bethlehem" marked the birth of Christ, so now God brought forth another celestial miracle to pronounce His death. This prophecy is one of those that is beyond the control of mortal man, and as such it dispels the theory that Christ could have manipulated events so as to make it appear that He was the Messiah. But is there any evidence that this really occurred? Did the sun go dark at noonday? In his book, Evidence That Demands a Verdict (Volume 1, pages 81-87), Josh McDowell provides the following historical evidence that what took place at Calvary was more than just fanciful mythology:

Concerning the Samaritan-born historian Thallus, circa 52 A.D: (The writings of Thallus no longer exist, yet were alluded to by the historian Julius Africanus, as follows): "Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun - unreasonably, as it seems to me - unreasonably, of course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of a full moon, and it was at the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died."

Likewise, Africanus wrote concerning the writings of another first century historian by the name of Phlegon: "....during the time of Tiberius Caesar an eclipse of the sun occurred during the full moon."

Phlegon is also mentioned by the historian Origen in his work, "Contra Celsum," book 2, sections 14, 39, and 59: "Phlegon mentioned the eclipse that took place during the crucifixion of the Lord Christ....and this is shown by the historical account itself of Tiberius Caesar." Apparently at one time there were historical accounts of the strange darkness that came over the land that were kept in the official archives of Tiberius Caesar, though they are likely lost to history.

Finally, the 2nd century Roman born jurist and theologian Tertullian referred to a Roman archives report of an "unexplained darkness that took place during the reign of Tiberius Caesar, as can be seen in the archives of Pontius Pilate."

The darkness spoken of in the book of Matthew occurred between noon and three P.M. in the afternoon (from the sixth to the ninth hours, as the Jews were noted as referring to the sixth and the ninth hours of daylight). Note that a solar eclipse will take less than an hour to complete, and a total solar eclipse lasts just a few minutes. This, coupled with the fact that a solar eclipse cannot occur during a full moon (the moon would be on the 'other' side of the earth), provides further evidence that what occurred was something other than an eclipse of the sun. Just what it was no one can say for sure, just that from recorded historical sources there was a strange darkness during the time of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. From God's perspective, it surely was a time of mourning for His only begotten son.

Jesus once said, "I am the light of the world." So it shouldn't be surprising that during his death there might be a time of darkness over the land.

REFERENCE: McDowell, Josh. Evidence That Demands A Verdict (Vol. 1). Thomas Nelson Publishers. Nashville. 1972. (end)

So there you have it. The prophecy, the Biblical fulfillment, and extra-Biblical confirmation.

[micatala]

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.

Once again, Easyrider ignores the implications of his own argument.

Assuming Jesus is essentially responsible for all scripture, why does Jesus give a different teaching than Moses on divorce and remarriage?

If we are to accept OT teachings on homosexuality as interpreted by conservatives, we do the same conservatives ignore large tracts of the very same law where the few verses on "gay sex" are found?

Finally, as already noted, the passages in the NT, especially the chapter in Romans, are discussing a very specific group of people known to Paul who have already consciously rejected God. It is a great stretch to take this passage as a blanket condemnation of homosexuality, never mind that the word used by Paul does not even necessarily mean "homosexuality" as we read it today.


Now, I willingly concede that I cannot make a conclusive Biblical case for my position due to the ambiguities of much of the text. Easyrider, I would suggest, might consider doing the same since his position is even less conclusively supported than mine, the fact that it is the traditional interpretation of many notwithstanding.

[Easyrider]

This is an excerpt from the book, "Answers to Tough Questions," by Josh McDowell and Don Stewart.

Of course, this does not address the points Scouter made

Yeah it did too, Goat. It addressed his contention that Jesus never claimed to be God. Now please, enough of these tiresome and ill-conceived kibbitzer jabs.

[Goat]

THE SUN DARKENED AT NOON

.

This is about the 6th time you have cut/paste this exact quote (and I don't see how it relates to traditional vs gay marriage at all).

However, could you respond to any of that last 6 times this was refuted after you cut and paste from it?

[Easyrider]

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.

Once again, Easyrider ignores the implications of his own argument.

Nope. But if you have something compelling to argue, let's see it.

Assuming Jesus is essentially responsible for all scripture, why does Jesus give a different teaching than Moses on divorce and remarriage?

First, show us what's different?

Finally, as already noted, the passages in the NT, especially the chapter in Romans, are discussing a very specific group of people known to Paul who have already consciously rejected God. It is a great stretch to take this passage as a blanket condemnation of homosexuality, never mind that the word used by Paul does not even necessarily mean "homosexuality" as we read it today.

It's no stretch at all. Maybe to you but that's your issue I suppose.

"Idolatry certainly plays a major role in Romans Chapter One. Paul begins his writing by describing humanity's rebellion and decision to worship creation rather than the Creator. The pro-gay theorist seizes on this concept to prove that Paul's condemnation of homosexuality does not apply to him-he does not worship idols, he is a Christian.

"But," Schmidt cautions, "Paul is not suggesting that a person worships an idol and decides therefore to engage in same-sex relations. Rather, he is suggesting that the general rebellion created the environment for the specific rebellion. A person need not bow before a golden calf to participate in the general human denial of God or to express that denial through specific behaviors."[85]

A common sense look at the entire chapter bears this out. Several sins other than homosexuality are mentioned in the same passage:

Fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, whisperers; backbiters, haters of God, disobedient to parents.... (vv 29-30)

Will the interpretation applied to the verse 26-27 also apply to verses 29-30? Any sort of intellectual integrity demands it. If verses 26-27 apply to people who commit homosexual acts in connection with idolatry, and thus homosexuals acts are not sinful if not committed in connection with idolatry, then the same must apply to verses 29-30 as well.

Therefore, we must assume that fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness et al are also condemned by Paul only because they were committed by people involved in idolatry; they are permissible otherwise.

Which is, of course, ridiculous. Like homosexuality, these sins are not just born of idol worship; they are symptomatic of a fallen state. If we are to say homosexuality is legitimate, so long as it's not a result of idol worship, then we also have to say these other sins are legitimate as well, so long as they, too, are not practiced as a result of idolatry." http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/dallas.html

Paul and 'Arsenokoite'
1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:9-10
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders ['abusers of themselves with mankind']... will inherit the kingdom of God.

We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels... for adulterers and perverts ['them that defile themselves with mankind']...

Traditional Position:

"Them that defile themselves with mankind" comes from the word Greek word arsenokoite, meaning "homosexual." Paul is saying homosexuality is a vice excluding its practitioners from the kingdom of God.

Pro-Gay Argument:

'Arsenokoite' is a word coined by Paul. It never appeared in Greek literature before he used it in these scriptures. There were, at the time, other words for "homosexual." Had he meant to refer to homosexuality, he would have used one of the words already in existence. Most likely, he was referring to male prostitution, which was common at the time.

Boswell points out, accurately, that the word is peculiar to Paul, suggesting he did not have homosexuality in mind when he used it.[86] Prostitution is Boswell's first choice. If not that, he suggests Paul was condemning general immorality. At any rate, the term, according to this argument, means some sort of immoral man but not a homosexual.

Response:

Paul coined 179 terms in the New Testament. The terms do not, because they are original, significantly change the context of the verses they appear in.

Nor is it remarkable he would have coined this one, considering he derived it directly from the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint):

meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gyniakos
(Lev 18:22)

hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos
(Lev 20:13)

In other words, when Paul adopted the term arsenokoite, he took it directly from the Levitical passages-in the Greek translation- forbidding homosexual behavior. The meaning, then, could not be clearer: Though the term is unique to Paul, it refers specifically to homosexual behavior.

As for the inference that it applies to male prostitution, a breakdown of the word shows it implies nothing of the sort. 'Arsene,' as mentioned earlier, appears few times in the New Testament, always referring to "male." 'Koite' appears only twice in the New Testament, and means "bed," used in a sexual connotation:

Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality [koite] and debauchery... (Rom 13:13)

Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed [koite] kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. (Heb 13:4)

The two words combined, as Paul used them, put "male" and "bed" together in a sexual sense. There is no hint of prostitution in the meaning of either of the words combined to make arsenokoite.

I remember clearly, and with inexpressible regret, the day I convinced myself it was acceptable for me to be both gay and Christian. Not only did I embrace the pro-gay theology-I promoted it as well, serving on the staff of the local Metropolitan Community Church and presenting the arguments cited in this series. Twelve years have passed since I realized my error, and during those years the pro-gay theology has enjoyed unprecedented exposure and acceptance, both in mainline denominations and among sincere (albeit sincerely deceived) believers.

Many Christians are unaware that there is such a thing as pro-gay theology, much less a movement built around it. And many who are aware of it have no idea how to answer its claims. Yet an answer is required; the pro-gay theology, like the gay rights movement it represents, grows daily in scope and influence. With the love Christ showed while weeping over Jerusalem, and the anger He displayed when clearing the Temple, the Church must respond.

[This article was revised and abridged from the book, A Strong Delusion: Confronting the "Gay Christian" Movement, by Joe Dallas (Harvest House 1996).]