Purpose of Marriage

[sjdean]

At Bible study, we often discuss the direction of the Church and how we get people back.

I think Christians have lost their way somewhat, we try to be all things to everyone, bend over backwards to incorporate everybody, rather than stand up from a principled position, we change our rules.

Women clergy, gay clergy, gay marriage, joining in with ramadan....

Seems to me there isn't a lot of the background thought in Christianity, it's just a decision with no reason.

So the question comes about Marriage. The Mormons have a position where they believe that we were all spirit beings, born into a life on earth with parents, where they teach us about the gospels to reunite with God. So you can see why they might disagree with gay marriage - how can two men procreate?

Sounds quite good, covers a lot of bases.

Christianity wise (and probably more Anglican wise), they seem to oppose gay marriage while allowing those who have no intention of having children get married.

There's seemingly no reason within the Church of England to have children other than to merely procreate, spread forth and multiply, nothings said about teaching. So where's the problem in this context in two men committing a life to each other?

So in Christianity, what is the purpose of marriage? What is the purpose of having children?

 

[chilehed]

"The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."

"Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter—appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values."

"By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory."

Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: "It is not good that man should be alone," and "from the beginning [he] made them male and female"; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: "Be fruitful and multiply." Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.​

USCCB - Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

[seashale76]

So in Christianity, what is the purpose of marriage? What is the purpose of having children?

The purpose of marriage is for a couple to be united spiritually and help each other on the path of salvation. Marriage is a type of martyrdom where you deny yourself for the other. This is why Orthodox marriage involves the crowning, which represents martyrdom. Children are a blessing to a marriage, the natural result, if you will (not the purpose).

Regarding homosexuality: It is not considered to be a natural state, but a fallen one. To indulge it is to indulge the passions, which will not help one on the path to theosis.

 

[DrFrank]

"Be fruitful and multiply" is an Old Testament teaching that is not repeated in the New Testament.Thank God for that considering the horrendous over-population problem in the world!

One of Jesus' most quoted statements was about children but it is usually misinterpreted.The American Bible Society has created this brilliant interpretation:

Matthew 19:14 (Contemporary English Version)
But Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and don't try to stop them! People who are like these children belong to God's kingdom."

Jesus was making the EXTREMELY IMPORTANT point that in order to make it into heaven we must have a child-like faith.

For Christians,the purpose for marriage is explained by the Apostle Paul.It is for those who can not control their lust so that they confine their sexual activity to one person of the opposite gender:

1 Corinthians 7:8-10 (New King James Version)

8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am (unmarried); 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

 

[sbbqb7n16]

There's seemingly no reason within the Church of England to have children other than to merely procreate, spread forth and multiply, nothings said about teaching. So where's the problem in this context in two men committing a life to each other?

So, what's the problem of two people committing to rob a bank together? Or the problem with two people who agree to lie to "protect" each other?

Stealing is a sin, lying is a sin, and homosexuality is a sin.

Just because two people agree that they would like to do something that is a sin, does not make it somehow okay.

So the probelm with "two men committing to a life to each other" is that they would be engaged in homosexuality.

The CoE, seeming to not mention teaching as an integral part of the marriage, has no bearing on whether homosexuality is okay. That's like saying, "well Budweiser uses less hops in their beer, so why can't I drink and drive?" They seem to be about the same general topic (drinking), but one statement has no bearing on the other.

 

[seashale76]

I would also like to add: For the Christian, everything can be related back to communion/eucharist. Marriage is a sacrament. It is also considered a martyrdom. You deny yourself for the sake of your spouse. You also aren't joined together with someone who also isn't in communion. When you engage in fornication or any other sexual sin (such as homosexuality)- it is a proclamation that you are refusing to deny yourself for the sake of Christ and are choosing to engage your passions- you are knowingly excommunicating yourself. When one is baptized into Christ they are part of the body of Christ- the temple of the Holy Spirit- receiving Christ in the Holy Mysteries. Willfully sinning in this manner is serious business- one risks their soul unless they repent and return to the hospital for what ails us.

 

[sjdean]

So, what's the problem of two people committing to rob a bank together? Or the problem with two people who agree to lie to "protect" each other?

Stealing is a sin, lying is a sin, and homosexuality is a sin.

Murder, theft... yes, there are ten commandments. But homosexuality? For every quotation anybody can generate to say homosexuality is a sin, another can provide another interpretation in another context and a different passage.

We could also point out "love thy neighbour as yourself" and on these two laws, hang the law and the prophets. Which I kind of gather to mean essentially, do not deny god, hold him first, and do not bring harm to others - which includes no stealing, no murder, no whatever.

Does gay sex cause harm?

 

[sjdean]

I would also like to add: For the Christian, everything can be related back to communion/eucharist. Marriage is a sacrament. It is also considered a martyrdom. You deny yourself for the sake of your spouse.

So if two men could get married, deny each other for the sake of their spouse, would that be acceptable?

Im on the fence on this one.

Some people find gay sex unacceptable because it's sex outside of marriage. But this is purely because two men aren't allowed to marry.

Then there's the argument that homosexuality is a sin, but then for every quote that can be generated in support of an argument, there are other quotes that can be generated to suggest it isn't. Even Love Thy Neighbour as Yourself (which I take to mean do not cause harm) could in theory allow it.

So I try to ask from another perspective, is there a point to children in a heterosexual marriage besides procreation? I understand the importance of marriage, but why is it important to procreate?

 

[sbbqb7n16]

Murder, theft... yes, there are ten commandments. But homosexuality? For every quotation anybody can generate to say homosexuality is a sin, another can provide another interpretation in another context and a different passage.

We could also point out "love thy neighbour as yourself" and on these two laws, hang the law and the prophets. Which I kind of gather to mean essentially, do not deny god, hold him first, and do not bring harm to others - which includes no stealing, no murder, no whatever.

Does gay sex cause harm?

Does keeping a few idols around the house to worship in private harm anyone?

How about praying to Buddha in private? What harm does that cause anyone?

So you're saying that you believe those are okay?


And please tell me how this could be read in context another way:

`If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
Leviticus 20:13

In context, the writer is listing a lot of different types of sexual sins. Man with man is listed as one of them. Ergo it's a sin.

 

[sjdean]

Does keeping a few idols around the house to worship in private harm anyone?

I gave you the first two laws Paul spoke about - you shall have no one before God, and love you neighbour as yourself.

To respond with the question you have, doesn't address my point.

Clearly having an idol does not put God first.

You still haven't demonstrated how gay sex between two consenting individuals in the privacy of their own bedroom within the confines of a marriage with commitment for each other is in anyway different to that of a heterosexual marriage.

There are two differences I can think of, lack of procreation and nature of pleasure.

How about praying to Buddha in private? What harm does that cause anyone?

Same question as your opening statement.

So you're saying that you believe those are okay?

Stop putting words into my mouth. I already gave you the answer before you asked this question. If you do not believe me,

"on these two laws, hang the law and the prophets. Which I kind of gather to mean essentially, do not deny god, hold him first"

And please tell me how this could be read in context another way:

`If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
Leviticus 20:13

Well, if you're saying you favour them being put to death then fair enough. You're entitled to your point of view. A lot of other people (not myself because I haven't got around to understanding it all yet) have the viewpoint such as:

The Holiness Code of Leviticus prohibits male same-sex practices because of religious considerations, not because of sexual ones. The concern is to keep Israel from taking part in Gentile practices. Homogenital sex is forbidden because it is associated with pagan activities (i.e. cultic prostitution), with idolatry, and with Gentile identity. The argument in Leviticus is religious, not ethical or moral. That is to say, no thought is given to whether the sex in itself is right or wrong. All concern is for keeping Jewish identity strong.

Therefore, it is a misuse of the Bible to quote Leviticus as an answer to today's ethical question of whether homosexuality is right or wrong. Leviticus was not addressing this question. The concern in Leviticus, the cultural context of that text, and the meaning of male-male sex in ancient Israel are all very foreign to the present situation. Today's question and that in Leviticus are simply two different things.

I'm Christian. I'm Gay. Deal With It!: Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 - What Exactly is an Abomination?

Of course if we were all still under the rules of the Old Testament, we'd be smashing our ovens to bit and demolishing our homes if anything unclean came near them. We wouldn't be eating pork, all meat would have to be kosher... you get the general idea.

Got any references from the New Testament?

In context, the writer is listing a lot of different types of sexual sins. Man with man is listed as one of them. Ergo it's a sin.

 

[seashale76]

Got any references from the New Testament?

The New Testament is as clear about it as the Old Testament.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

9Do 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 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.



Romans 1:24-30

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

 

[sbbqb7n16]

I gave you the first two laws Paul spoke about - you shall have no one before God, and love you neighbour as yourself.

To respond with the question you have, doesn't address my point.

But that's not the 1st law. The greatest commandment isn't "have no gods before Me" - it's "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" Part of loving God is not to participate in things He hates. Which includes idolatry, false gods, and homosexuality.

So my questions do actually fit into what you've asked.

If God hates homosexuality (see verse above), then how does it fulfill the command to love God by practicing it?

You still haven't demonstrated how gay sex between two consenting individuals in the privacy of their own bedroom within the confines of a marriage with commitment for each other is in anyway different to that of a heterosexual marriage.

Heterosexual marriage has 1 man and 1 woman, and is approved by God.
Homosexual relationships do not, and are not, respectively.
Thus I have now demonstrated how they are different.

Well, if you're saying you favour them being put to death then fair enough. You're entitled to your point of view. A lot of other people (not myself because I haven't got around to understanding it all yet) have the viewpoint such as:

I'm Christian. I'm Gay. Deal With It!: Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 - What Exactly is an Abomination?

Well that's an interesting argument: "it doesn't matter because all the parts of the Bible that say homosexuality is wrong conveniently do not matter to today's times anymore - but most of the verses around them do."

Please note the context of Leviticus 20. Don't you find it a bit odd that the only one of these that doesn't apply because of "the culture at the time" is homosexuality?? Why aren't the rest all part of the culture too? Your quoted argument is based on one word. Mine is based on the entire context. It is blatantly apparent that this is a list of sins, and homosexuality is one of them:

8. `You shall keep My statutes and practice them; I am the LORD who sanctifies you.
9. `If there is anyone who curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, his bloodguiltiness is upon him.
10. `If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
11. `If there is a man who lies with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
12. `If there is a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed incest, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
13. `If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
14. `If there is a man who marries a woman and her mother, it is immorality; both he and they shall be burned with fire, so that there will be no immorality in your midst.
15. `If there is a man who lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death; you shall also kill the animal.
16. `If there is a woman who approaches any animal to mate with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
17. `If there is a man who takes his sister, his father's daughter or his mother's daughter, so that he sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace; and they shall be cut off in the sight of the sons of their people. He has uncovered his sister's nakedness; he bears his guilt.
18. `If there is a man who lies with a menstruous woman and uncovers her nakedness, he has laid bare her flow, and she has exposed the flow of her blood; thus both of them shall be cut off from among their people.
19. `You shall also not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister or of your father's sister, for such a one has made naked his blood relative; they will bear their guilt.
20. `If there is a man who lies with his uncle's wife he has uncovered his uncle's nakedness; they will bear their sin. They will die childless.
21. `If there is a man who takes his brother's wife, it is abhorrent; he has uncovered his brother's nakedness. They will be childless.

Got any references from the New Testament?

See SeaShale's post.

Plus can you give me a reference from the New Testament where Jesus says child molestation is wrong? No? How about rape? What do Jesus and the NT say about rape?

The argument that "well Jesus doesn't specifically address it, so it's okay" is ludicrous.

Luckily, Paul happens to cover it quite well. He calls it "shameful," a "perversion", from a "depraved mind." Doesn't sound like it's approved to me.

 

[sjdean]

But that's not the 1st law. The greatest commandment isn't "have no gods before Me" - it's "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" Part of loving God is not to participate in things He hates. Which includes idolatry, false gods, and homosexuality.

So my questions do actually fit into what you've asked.

Yes, the first bit to me means you put God first, you have no idols and you don't worship them as God. Yes. We know that.

Having a heterosexual marriage is OK, but still (upto this point) you haven't demonstrated why a homosexual marriage is wrong. All you've done is said it is wrong without demonstrating why. Or indeed what more you get out of a heterosexual marriage other than children.

If God hates homosexuality (see verse above), then how does it fulfill the command to love God by practicing it?

You mean the old testament law, which some people suggest was about separating the jews from the gentiles? Please show me something from the New Testament. I did ask before.

Heterosexual marriage has 1 man and 1 woman, and is approved by God.
Homosexual relationships do not, and are not, respectively.
Thus I have now demonstrated how they are different.

But you haven't given me something from the New Testament. Remember, I don't think we are under Old Testament law, otherwise we would be getting circumcised, not eating pork, and shaving our heads.

8. `You shall keep My statutes and practice them; I am the LORD who sanctifies you.

snip

Interesting list of laws, which in that context is quite good. I was going to respond by saying that the majority of them are hurtful to another person so doesn't fulfil the second commandment - love your neighbour as yourself. On these two commandments hang the law and the prophets and if anyone preaches a different gospel let them be eternally condemned. However there are a few in there which may not necessarily be considered hurtful, but certainly immoral in culture.

Which brings me onto my next point about culture vs religion and how much of that list of laws was about establishing a culture of the time. It's certainly part of our culture now, but is it definitely part of religion?

Plus can you give me a reference from the New Testament where Jesus says child molestation is wrong? No? How about rape? What do Jesus and the NT say about rape?

The argument that "well Jesus doesn't specifically address it, so it's okay" is ludicrous.

Your argument is ludicrous. Child Molestation is in fact Rape, and Rape is against someones will, it is non consensual and therefore is most definitely not Loving Your Neighbour as Yourself.

Feeling that you need a rule or law about this is confusing in the light of what Paul said.

Again, show me how a consenual homosexual act in the confines of a marriage, is harmful?

Luckily, Paul happens to cover it quite well. He calls it "shameful," a "perversion", from a "depraved mind." Doesn't sound like it's approved to me.

In answer to those two quotes from Corinthians and Romans, I have seen the following websites, only briefly, which discusses about viewing scripture in the context of the time - especially the Romans bit, which they think refers more to shrine prostitution than it does homosexuality.

I'm Christian. I'm Gay. Deal With It!: 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 - Temple Prostitutes and Pederasty

In Romans 1, Paul describes shrine prostitution, not homosexuals, not lesbians.

Fascinating reads, whether you agree with them or not.

My position? Im kind of on the fence. Im not gay. Full stop.

I would be much happier to talk about us not giving into lust and our carnal desires so that we have a marriage and union between a man and woman to go forth and procreate, bring children into the world and bring forth more Christians.

Although can I find anything in the Bible or from the Church about why we need children?

 

[heymikey80]

To be quite honest, trying to shoehorn a good Jewish boy's comments about homosexuality into a religious practice of Gentile idolatry has never made plausible sense to me. It's just an attempt to minimize something much larger that Paul has said.

To the OP: cultural averages have been radically shifted in respect to adultery, fornication, and homosexuality. I'd say if you have no particular appreciation for the first two as sin, there's no sense going on to be outraged at the third sin. They're allies. They all will out when one is compromised-with.

But there's clear moral standing against homosexuality, adultery, and fornication, and even more: against all sorts of sexual sinfulness. The very general term of inappropriate contentea is used in Scripture. It's so broad that it does indeed extend to incidental lust, inappropriate contentography, sexually suggestive voyeurism ... it's all there.

Now, you can slouch toward sinfulness and compromise with the world on these high Christian standards like other Christian hypocrites, or you can see how these things create a personally objectivizing -- a killing attitude between Christians in marriage, and take a radically different path. It involves far more than simply abstaining from sexual activity outside marriage. That's a horrific minimization of a Christian approach to sexuality, which is indeed a unity of differences that results in an environment for raising spiritual lives -- not just physical procreation.

But it's hard to see with clarity because of the clouds of cultural compromise. Change that. Get away from "what other people think" and find out "what God thinks". Then think His thoughts after Him. Only then will you see the profound insight He has into human relationships as when He created marriage.

The insights into such things have indeed come from Christianity. Christian writers have written a whole lot about it -- just not modern Christian writers. Modernity is not known for a proper approach to sexuality, so it's no surprise to find a desert in their understanding. But go back. I'm sure some writers, say, C.S. Lewis', is probably a good introduction. But go back. Find St. Bernard. Find Thomas a Kempis. Find John Chrysostom. And read them. I'm sure there're more. Read about the Christian martyrs identified because of their sexual purity, and muse on why their attitudes would appear to the modern world.

It's there. The thinking has been there for as long as Christianity. Find it. Read it. Learn it. Apply it.

 

[sbbqb7n16]

Yes, the first bit to me means you put God first, you have no idols and you don't worship them as God. Yes. We know that.

Having a heterosexual marriage is OK, but still (upto this point) you haven't demonstrated why a homosexual marriage is wrong. All you've done is said it is wrong without demonstrating why. Or indeed what more you get out of a heterosexual marriage other than children.

If God says that homosexuality is wrong, and a homosexual marriage would be based on homosexuality - then there is no need for further demonstration.

Homosexuality is a perversion of God's original intention/design for relationships. And it is clear from the passage that the only suitable mate for a man is a woman:

18. Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."19. Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.20. The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.21. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.22. The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.23. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man."
24. For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
Genesis 2:18-24

In this passage, in the original Hebrew wife is still absolutely feminine. And is clearly a reference to the woman created in vs 22.

You mean the old testament law, which some people suggest was about separating the jews from the gentiles? Please show me something from the New Testament. I did ask before.

But you haven't given me something from the New Testament. Remember, I don't think we are under Old Testament law, otherwise we would be getting circumcised, not eating pork, and shaving our heads.

I did, by referencing seashale's post.

Some would argue that the NT law is more stringent than the OT. Whereas the OT condemned adultery, the NT condemns the lust that leads to it. Where the OT law could only address outer actions, the NT law covers issues of the heart.

17. "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.18. "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.19. "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:17-19


By the way, when Jesus mentioned the greatest and 2nd commandments, He was quoting from the Old Testament.

You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.
Deuteronomy 6:5

`You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD.
Leviticus 19:18

Your argument is ludicrous. Child Molestation is in fact Rape, and Rape is against someones will, it is non consensual and therefore is most definitely not Loving Your Neighbour as Yourself.

Feeling that you need a rule or law about this is confusing in the light of what Paul said

That's the whole point. Homosexuality is definitely not loving the Lord God with all your heart with all your soul and with all your mind - because it is a perversion of His original design. Ergo, it's not needed to be addressed specifically - in the same manner that rape, and molestation are not needed to be specifically addressed because they violate the 2nd law of love your neighbor as yourself.

Again, show me how a consenual homosexual act in the confines of a marriage, is harmful?

Again, consenual does not make it okay. How about prostitution? If a single man goes to a prostitue, they have consenual sex for money. It's agreed and therefore consenual - and they don't "harm" anyone. So why is that not okay?

but since a marriage - by God's design - was between a man and a woman, then it is impossible to have a homosexual marriage.

In answer to those two quotes from Corinthians and Romans, I have seen the following websites, only briefly, which discusses about viewing scripture in the context of the time - especially the Romans bit, which they think refers more to shrine prostitution than it does homosexuality.

I'm Christian. I'm Gay. Deal With It!: 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 - Temple Prostitutes and Pederasty

In Romans 1, Paul describes shrine prostitution, not homosexuals, not lesbians.

Fascinating reads, whether you agree with them or not.

If you read the actual passages and not some wrong interpretations of them, you'd see that both passages clearly refer to the act of homosexuality independently and separately of temple prostitution.

They are in seashales post above.

 

[sjdean]

First I would say that sex with a prostitute is quite clearly sex outside of any marriage.

Quite a lot of time, those with an opposition to gay sex point out that they oppose it because two men aren't allowed to get married. They say it is a perversion because it is sex outside of marriage.

So I ask, why can't they get married, and they reply by saying gay sex is wrong.

It becomes a self referencing argument and neither viewpoint can stand on its own.

I am one of those with the opinion that it is 10 times worse to fornicate, commit adultery and have sex outside of marriage than it is for two gay men to have consenual sex in a loving stable committed relationship of marriage.

That was an excellent response about "perversion of design". Quite clearly you are right in that. God made Adam and Eve, Man and Woman, there was a design, a reason behind that.

That's the kind of answer I enjoy. I think we make God more complicated than he is. These simple arguments speak volumes to me.