Homosexuality in the Bible

[mizzdy]

Onus is on you to prove that God's design for marriage has either changed from man-woman, or was never limited to man-woman in the first place. You have demonstrated neither, and simply assume it is possible because it is convenient for your argument. Use scripture, and show me a single place where God either defines marriage in such a way that includes same sex couples, or a place where it is demonstrated that the design for marriage changes over time. This argument from silence business is very poor... because the design of man and woman is reiterated by Jesus Himself in the gospels.

You are asking me to defend against the condemnation of homosexual marriage by showing that God specifically supports it. That is impossible. There is NO EVIDENCE. However, at the same time, that does not mean that we can condemn homosexual marriage (which is what is required for your position to be held as true). For instance, God says, "be fruitful and multiply." Does this mean that we attack those who are chaste for life for not procreating? Of course not. God did not say that it was wrong not to multiply he just indicated that he approved of people going forth and multiplying. In the same way, God did not say it was wrong to engage in homosexual marriage, he just mentioned heterosexual marriage. It was merely the norm of the day. Context is important...

Jesus reiterates the common view of marriage. He does not condemn homosexual marriage... unless I'm mistaken...

Shalom

It all boils down to like kind, God created each of us unique, male and female, animals are male and female, most things in this world do follow those laws set forth by God. Tomatoes produce tomatoes, same seed produces same seed. Its not just all about procreation but it is all about being with those God designed us to be with, if He had thought that monkeys and rhinos would make a great animal He more than likely would have created an animal from those seeds. So I would say yes Yeshua did condemn any union that is not like kind. By giving us the example of what a marriage should be He cuts off any and all other unions. God never once said well if your not gonna have kids do what you want, He specifically tells us He created man and woman for man and woman. Same sex unions do go against nature.

shalom,

Mizz

[Smalcald]

So homosexuality was an accepted practice among the ancient Jews? What do Orthodox Rabbis teach about homosexuality?

We know that within Christianity from the Desert Fathers, to St. Augustine, to Marin Luther, to the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs, to CS Lewis and on through today, plus every major Christian religious sect for the past 1700 years have all read the bible to mean that homosexual acts are sin. Why would we accept this very modern idea that you and the gay lobby are introducing. Lets face it your points are political not theological.

However let me go on to say this is not a defining issue within Christianity. It is one specific sexual practice by a small percentage of the population. It is certainly not a central theological point. Also I hold no malice against gay people, I know and work with gay people and have one close friend who is gay. I also hold that gay sexual temptation is not in and of itself a sin, it is a temptation to be handled like we handle all temptations. It is no different than if I as a married man am tempted to look at porn or to cheat on my wife or to masturbate etc. all are sexual sin and something to be handled with prayer and kindness.

I hope you stay and argue points, and hopefully we won't get stuck on this one small issue.

Peace.

[Guest shiloh357]

I don't understand. You seem to be implying that penetration is condemned in the bible. That's what homosexual acts are... so, where is the disagreement? Homosexual acts are sinful. The orientation itself, I'm not so sure it's sinful, but it's not what the Lord designed for us to desire, so why should we hold onto it?

Penetration of one man by another seems to be the only homosexual act condemned in the Bible. Actually according to Rambam, a 12th cent. Jewish rabbi who studied the Leviticus passages (18:22 and 20:13), anal penetration is most likely what they were referring to. Not all homosexual acts have to be penetrating in the sense that the bible is talking about. For instance, if the interpretation I present is correct, women are off the hook in regards to homosexuality and homosexual men could still participate in oral sex and fondling.

Your position is incorrect on several counts. For one thing, I read and speak Hebrew and you are pretty much up a creek on this. Furthermore, the Hebrew word for "lie" does not simply mean penetration.

Furthermore, even IF you could make the case that Leviticus 18 and 20 only refer to anal penetration, what you need to understand about the way Jews view the law is that it is serves as a behavioral paradigm. That means that it doesn't cover every act that can be committed but simply gives an example within particular realm of behavior or actions.

For example: The law says that if your ox gores my sheep, you have to pay me restitution for the loss of my sheep. However the law does not say what to do if your goat gores my sheep. Does that let you off the hook for restitution? No. We simply extrapolate what the law says about about your ox and apply it to your goat. In the same way, even IF you could make the case that it only refers to anal penetration, the hebraic way of understanding the law would mean that the entire range of behavior associated with that act including the desires that prompt it, are as equally sinful. So even wanting or desiring a homosexual relationship is just as sinful as the act. Pre-sexual activities are just as sinful as the act of "penetration." It would also include gay marriage

Jesus illustrated this hebraic concept when he said that simply looking on a woman with lust was to in effect commit adultery with her in your heart. So you were guilty of adultery even though there was no "penetration.' Jesus also said that to hate a person in your heart was to, in effect commit murder in your heart. God does not only want us to not refrain from sin, but there should not be anything in our hearts or minds to prompt those sins in the first place.

If you had a 12 year-old daughter and you found out somehow that the man next door had been spying your daughter and had been displaying some behavior that made you think he had some very bad intentions toward your daughter, would you want him living next to you? Would you not take action, call law enforcement? Would you not do something? Even though he had not actually committed the act, knowing that the motive is there would be enough to be problematic. You would be as alarmed by behavior associated with the act of molestation as you would be with the act itself. Even in our modern world, we understand that sinful actions are prompted by sinful desires and we object to anyone having those desires, much less acting on them.

God says homosexuality is an abomination to Him, and you need to believe the Bible.

[ByFaithAlone]

But you still can't answer the very clear and direct condemnation of lust for another man which was St. Paul's point in Romans 1. Orgy or not what he focused on was leaving the natural use of men for women and women for men.

Paul was condemning the lust present in the orgy. He also condemned heterosexual couples too (see my previous post) It was done outside of marriage so of course it was condemned! That makes sense to both of us. However, if homosexuals are married and don't participate in pagan orgies like these to honor false gods than why should we condemn? The point was not to attack same sex couples or heterosexual couples but rather the practices they were engaged in. Again this is supported by contemporary Philo and early Christian apologetic Aristides. Do you have any contemporaries who say differently?

The passages on what the definition of marriage is by Christ Himself are a very direct definition of marriage. Who is the wife in a gay "marriage"? Without a wife and a husband there can be no true marriage it does not exist.

Christ was merely giving the common example of marriage at the time. He does not say that this is the clear cut definitive form of marriage. For instance, he never mentions polygamy but multiple kings such as David and Solomon practiced polygamy. Does this mean that they were wrong in taking multiple wives - sometimes on God's commands?

Secondly you missed my point and actually made my point on the 1 Corinthians passage. St. Paul specifically called out a harlot as feminine, if he wanted to talk about prostitution he could have done that also in Romans 1,

I'm confused here... if he wanted to refer to male shrine prostitutes why do you say would he use the feminine form of prostitute...? Doesn't it make more sense for him to make a word that, in context, would convey his meaning, as many contemporaries agree?

but no he focused there specifically on homosexual lust, which he calls out directly as sin and a perversion. It is really really hard to not make that case when it is in black and white right in front of you.

Where does he call it a sin or perversion? Also, based on the evidence regarding shrine prostitution isn't it more logical to assume he was discussing that? Why do you want to throw a blanket condemnation on something that is not condemned? Would you also like to condemn heterosexual couples because a few participated in these pagan ceremonies?

"This second scripture passage is also from 1 Corinthians, I believe (1 Corinthians 6 unless my memory deceives me). I did bring up a response to this before but I will address it again. The word used for homosexuals in this passage is arsenokoites. Arseno means male in Greek while koitai refers to bed. Literally in means males laying together. More specifically it refers to sexual relations (laying with is commonly used in the Bible to indicate sex and penetration - see previous responses on this issue). It does not refer to females and it only refers to one sexual act. This verse does not help you. No clear, consistent and direct scripture has yet to be found."

Boy I have not seen anyone try this hard to twist scripture before. Look sex is sex, oral, anal, vaginal it is all sex, are you really saying that only anal sex is wrong between two men? That God would parse out perversion in this way? What is the biological purpose of oral sex between two men, what biological purpose does that type of sex serve that God designed it that way? Lying with a man as you point out is sex, and it is shown in this verse to be something that people who are saved do not engage in. Once again clear and consistent guidance on sexual relations that please God and those that do not.

I am not trying to twist scripture, but rather, explain it to you in full context. You have to understand the Greek and Hebrew here. That is why it is so hard to explain. The Greek and Hebrew authors never blatantly say sex or insert blank into blank. Rather they imply it. "Laying with" is the common wording for sex (particularly penetration). Here is the Greek form of the OT, commonly used by Paul and the Corinthians.

(Leviticus 18:22): Kai meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gunaikos.

As I said before, arsenos refers to males and koiten means beds (gunaikos is females). The two words were combined to form the word Paul uses in his letter. There is a very specific link between the Leviticus passage and the wording in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1. Whenever a male (arsenos) lays with (koiten) a female (gunaikos), there is the following pronouncement - she's pregnant. I can spout examples all day if you want them. Clearly, koitai indicates penetration (of you don't understand the biology behind that I could explain...) That is why scholars such as Rambam (a 12th cent. Jewish rabbi agree with my interpretation.

Our bodies were designed by God to compliment each other. Men were given sperm, women were given eggs, this is how God designed us and as shown in the numerous passages we have quoted from Genesis through 1 Corinthians, a man and a women were made for each other naturally.

I would agree that we were naturally made to compliment each other. However, that does not mean that all homosexuality is a sin.

[nChrist]

====================

Genesis 18:19-23 KJV For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him. 20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; 21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know. 22 And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD. 23 And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?

Genesis 18:19-23 AMP For I have known (chosen, acknowledged) him [as My own], so that he may teach and command his children and the sons of his house after him to keep the way of the Lord and to do what is just and righteous, so that the Lord may bring Abraham what He has promised him. 20 And the Lord said, Because the shriek [of the sins] of Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is exceedingly grievous, 21 I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether [as vilely and wickedly] as is the cry of it which has come to Me; and if not, I will know. 22 Now the [two] men turned from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the Lord. 23 And Abraham came close and said, Will You destroy the righteous (those upright and in right standing with God) together with the wicked?

====================

Genesis 19:4-7 KJV But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. 6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, 7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

Genesis 19:4-7 AMP But before they lay down, the men of the city of Sodom, both young and old, all the men from every quarter, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot and said, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know (be intimate with) them. 6 And Lot went out of the door to the men and shut the door after him 7 And said, I beg of you, my brothers, do not behave so wickedly.

====================

Leviticus 18:22-25 KJV Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. 23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. 24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: 25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.

Leviticus 18:22-25 AMP You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination. [i Cor. 6:9, 10.] 23 Neither shall you lie with any beast and defile yourself with it; neither shall any woman yield herself to a beast to lie with it; it is confusion, perversion, and degradedly carnal. 24 Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, for in all these things the nations are defiled which I am casting out before you. 25 And the land is defiled; therefore I visit the iniquity of it upon it, and the land itself vomits out her inhabitants.

====================

Leviticus 20:13 KJV If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Leviticus 20:13 AMP If a man lies with a male as if he were a woman, both men have committed an offense (something perverse, unnatural, abhorrent, and detestable); they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

====================

Romans 1:22-28 KJV Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Romans 1:22-28 AMP Claiming to be wise, they became fools [professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves]. 23 And by them the glory and majesty and excellence of the immortal God were exchanged for and represented by images, resembling mortal man and birds and beasts and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their [own] hearts to sexual impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves [abandoning them to the degrading power of sin], 25 Because they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, Who is blessed forever! Amen (so be it). [Jer. 2:11.] 26 For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one, 27 And the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another--men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution. 28 And so, since they did not see fit to acknowledge God or approve of Him or consider Him worth the knowing, God gave them over to a base and condemned mind to do things not proper or decent but loathsome,

===================

1 Corinthians 6:9 KJV Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

1 Corinthians 6:9 AMP Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality,

====================

Ephesians 4:18-19 KJV Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: 19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

Ephesians 4:18-19 AMP Their moral understanding is darkened and their reasoning is beclouded. [They are] alienated (estranged, self-banished) from the life of God [with no share in it; this is] because of the ignorance (the want of knowledge and perception, the willful blindness) that is deep-seated in them, due to their hardness of heart [to the insensitiveness of their moral nature]. 19 In their spiritual apathy they have become callous and past feeling and reckless and have abandoned themselves [a prey] to unbridled sensuality, eager and greedy to indulge in every form of impurity [that their depraved desires may suggest and demand].

====================

Ephesians 5:11-12 KJV And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. 12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.

Ephesians 5:11-12 AMP Take no part in and have no fellowship with the fruitless deeds and enterprises of darkness, but instead [let your lives be so in contrast as to] expose and reprove and convict them. 12 For it is a shame even to speak of or mention the things that [such people] practice in secret.

====================

1 Timothy 1:9-10 KJV Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

1 Timothy 1:9-10 AMP Knowing and understanding this: that the Law is not enacted for the righteous (the upright and just, who are in right standing with God), but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinful, for the irreverent and profane, for those who strike and beat and [even] murder fathers and strike and beat and [even] murder mothers, for manslayers, 10 [For] impure and immoral persons, those who abuse themselves with men, kidnapers, liars, perjurers--and whatever else is opposed to wholesome teaching and sound doctrine

====================

Jude 1:6-10 KJV And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. 8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. 9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. 10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

Jude 1:6-10 AMP And angels who did not keep (care for, guard, and hold to) their own first place of power but abandoned their proper dwelling place--these He has reserved in custody in eternal chains (bonds) under the thick gloom of utter darkness until the judgment and doom of the great day. 7 [The wicked are sentenced to suffer] just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the adjacent towns--which likewise gave themselves over to impurity and indulged in unnatural vice and sensual perversity--are laid out [in plain sight] as an exhibit of perpetual punishment [to warn] of everlasting fire. [ Gen. 19.] 8 Nevertheless in like manner, these dreamers also corrupt the body, scorn and reject authority and government, and revile and libel and scoff at [heavenly] glories (the glorious ones). 9 But when [even] the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, judicially argued (disputed) about the body of Moses, he dared not [presume to] bring an abusive condemnation against him, but [simply] said, The Lord rebuke you! [Zech. 3:2.] 10 But these men revile (scoff and sneer at) anything they do not happen to be acquainted with and do not understand; and whatever they do understand physically [that which they know by mere instinct], like irrational beasts--by these they corrupt themselves and are destroyed (perish).

====================

[Smalcald]

by faith,

If you assume in Leviticus that lying with a man only means anal sex or I guess you could include oral sex in penetration, would it then follow when we are told not to lie with animals, that we can have sexual relations with animals as long as it is not penetration?

[ByFaithAlone]

Your position is incorrect on several counts. For one thing, I read and speak Hebrew and you are pretty much up a creek on this. Furthermore, the Hebrew word for "lie" does not simply mean penetration.

True, but based on precedents set in the Bible it indicates penetration. And Adam lay with his wife and she became pregnant... And [insert biblical patriarch here] lay with his wife and she became pregnant, etc. I could explain the biology of why this indicates penetration if you so desire... This is not "up the creek." A number of Jewish scholars accept this idea.

Furthermore, even IF you could make the case that Leviticus 18 and 20 only refer to anal penetration, what you need to understand about the way Jews view the law is that it is serves as a behavioral paradigm. That means that it doesn't cover every act that can be committed but simply gives an example within particular realm of behavior or actions.

For example: The law says that if your ox gores my sheep, you have to pay me restitution for the loss of my sheep. However the law does not say what to do if your goat gores my sheep. Does that let you off the hook for restitution? No. We simply extrapolate what the law says about about your ox and apply it to your goat. In the same way, even IF you could make the case that it only refers to anal penetration, the hebraic way of understanding the law would mean that the entire range of behavior associated with that act including the desires that prompt it, are as equally sinful. So even wanting or desiring a homosexual relationship is just as sinful as the act. Pre-sexual activities are just as sinful as the act of "penetration."

First off, it would be difficult for a goat to gore any sheep, but I see what you are saying. You are talking about the difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. However, you are extrapolating in two completely different manners. In the first way, you are extrapolating who does the action while in the second you extrapolate the action itself. I would just like to point out that this isn't analogous. In the first case, it's like saying Bob cannot commit murder and neither can anyone else. That's all fine with me. However, the second is like saying Bob cannot commit murder and everyone else can't kill. There is a difference, although subtle...

Personally, I would accept your extrapolation to include the intentional excitement of a male's genitals by another man, as this is the current view that I hold. However, I would still allow marriage...

It would also include gay marriage

How so?

Jesus illustrated this hebraic concept when he said that simply looking on a woman with lust was to in effect commit adultery with her in your heart. So you were guilty of adultery even though there was no "penetration.' Jesus also said that to hate a person in your heart was to, in effect commit murder in your heart. God does not only want us to not refrain from sin, but there should not be anything in our hearts or minds to prompt those sins in the first place.

True, but what if you recognize the penetration as the sin (or even extend it to male homosexual acts) then, as long as the homosexual couple recognizes these as sins, why should they be forbidden to marry?

God says homosexuality is an abomination to Him, and you need to believe the Bible.

What about female homosexuality? I see no condemnation there... Are you just extrapolating...?

[ByFaithAlone]

It all boils down to like kind, God created each of us unique, male and female, animals are male and female, most things in this world do follow those laws set forth by God. Tomatoes produce tomatoes, same seed produces same seed. Its not just all about procreation but it is all about being with those God designed us to be with, if He had thought that monkeys and rhinos would make a great animal He more than likely would have created an animal from those seeds. So I would say yes Yeshua did condemn any union that is not like kind. By giving us the example of what a marriage should be He cuts off any and all other unions. God never once said well if your not gonna have kids do what you want, He specifically tells us He created man and woman for man and woman. Same sex unions do go against nature.

shalom,

Mizz

Shalom Mizz:

How did Yeshua or Ha'Shem do so? You are using the inversion fallacy. Just because A->B does not mean that the Negative of A->Negative of B. In the same way, just because Yeshua or Ha'Shem approves of heterosexual marriages does not automatically mean that "He cuts off any and all other unions." Using that logic, celibate people are also committing sins by not engaging in the same type of union...

[ByFaithAlone]

by faith,

If you assume in Leviticus that lying with a man only means anal sex or I guess you could include oral sex in penetration, would it then follow when we are told not to lie with animals, that we can have sexual relations with animals as long as it is not penetration?

I suppose you could include oral sex. That would be my current interpretation although Rambam disagrees with both of us here.

As for the bestiality issue, nope, in this case all sexual relations are prohibited. The wording is not indicative of penetration.

Leviticus 20:12-16

“‘If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he is to be put to death, and you must kill the animal. “‘If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

The interesting thing is, why wasn't the wording "sexual relations" used previously when regarding homosexuality...? Obviously it was a little more specific than just "sexual relations."

[Guest shiloh357]

True, but based on precedents set in the Bible it indicates penetration.

More accurately, it includes penetration.

And Adam lay with his wife and she became pregnant... And [insert biblical patriarch here] lay with his wife and she became pregnant, etc. I could explain the biology of why this indicates penetration if you so desire... This is not "up the creek." A number of Jewish scholars accept this idea.

Jewish scholars are not the last word on the issue. The Scriptures are very plain. There are scholars of the Bible who don't believe it. The fact is that the Hebrew simply does not support your position.

First off, it would be difficult for a goat to gore any sheep, but I see what you are saying. You are talking about the difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law.

Not exactly. I am saying that unlike our laws in the US for example, there are not allowances for technicalities. In the Scripture, the commandment against making a graven image (idol) is also by extension a prohibition against any image regardless of the medium used to create it. That is not the spirit of the law. That is again, a referent to a behavioral paradigm.

However, you are extrapolating in two completely different manners. In the first way, you are extrapolating who does the action while in the second you extrapolate the action itself. I would just like to point out that this isn't analogous. In the first case, it's like saying Bob cannot commit murder and neither can anyone else. That's all fine with me. However, the second is like saying Bob cannot commit murder and everyone else can't kill. There is a difference, although subtle...

Huh? It's not like that all. What I am saying is that Murder is wrong even if it only amounts to hating someone in your heart. That is the point I was making. The desire that prompts the act is jsut as sinful as the act. That is all I am saying.

Personally, I would accept your extrapolation to include the intentional excitement of a male's genitals by another man, as this is the current view that I hold. However, I would still allow marriage...

Well, you might but the Bible doesn't. Homosexuality from the point of desire to the full act of sexual intercourse and everything in between is sinful and God does not sanctify a marriage of that nature. No authentic follower of Christ accepts that.

shiloh357, on 21 July 2011 - 01:28 PM, said:

It would also include gay marriage

How so?

Because homosexuality is a sin and God does not sanctify those kinds of unions. They are an abomination to Him.

True, but what if you recognize the penetration as the sin (or even extend it to male homosexual acts) then, as long as the homosexual couple recognizes these as sins, why should they be forbidden to marry?

That question suggest a lot of naivete. To honestly think that homosexuals will marry but never have sex is just ridiculous. The fact is we have NEVER had a homosexual on this board (and we hve had a lot of them) who thinks that way. So your question is based on a premise that is simply ridiculous and falls outside what is intuitively observed.

What about female homosexuality? I see no condemnation there... Are you just extrapolating...?

Oh please... You see what you want to see.

Again, what you have is a behavioral paradigm. What is wrong for the man is sexually sinful for the man is sexually sinful for the woman.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

(Rom 1:26-27)

The Hebraic approach to the law completely justifies Paul's condemnation of Lesbiansim. God is no respecter of persons.