Biblical support for gay sex? A simple question

[onemessiah]

Are you using scripture? Humanism is not going to cut it in this thread, you'll have to use scripture. (Hopefully that is not considered a flaming statement.)



Join the club. I posted the absolute truth with a link to photographic evidence about gay culture and got slammed like a tagger caught with cans of paint at school. Yet, all I did was show evidence to back up my assertions.



Discriminating is not actually always a bad thing. I'm not buying a GM product.

In many colleges you have to be a Darwinist evolutionist to get a job. If a science professor "comes out" as a "creationist" is is ousted or shunned. I believe there was a movie with some of these professors telling their stories of just such real actual experiences. (The bad kind.)

"I" tell the truth about atheism and "you" see it is a direct attack on "you." Yet, it is just the facts I present. A fact, you can prove with a scientific calulator or a .99 cent calculator bought at a dollar store.

The mods know all too well the vitrioloic tactics employed on this subject to silence any and all dissent of gay activism.

Please, what about the OP? "I" wrote it, and it is fact based. Yet, without any support, people are arguing that gay sex and gay culture is supported and indeed promoted, in the Bible. You ask for proof of the existense of God, and I do the same about gay activism having any biblical foundation.



How do you say to someone that they are here as a non or anti-Christian, that they are here to puff themselves up and to try to lord their social and political ideology over Christians, without that being claimed as baiting or flaming? Christians, that are debating on a Christian website, that have come to their decisions based on examining the same evidence you do but coming up with a different answer?

Just about anything is flaming and baiting when opposing views are discussed with the seriousness that this subject holds as its bottom line.

How does one person tell another person "You are wrong, and you know it," without that coming across as baiting and/or flaming?

I feel your pain. I really do.

You and I have had several conservations on this topic, and we rarely agree on each others viewpoints. So what do we do? I break out the Irony Hammer, and you thuh-whack me. Unless I'm severely mistaken, neither of us get offended by the other. If we can "fight nice", why is it so difficult to be able to express opinions to others here?
I'm on another forum (an atheist one), and the christians that come over there are free to preach the Gospel, etc. knowing that they will be challenged. People get hyped up and animated (both the atheists and the christians), but that's the beauty of it. You're free to be you. No one is trying to stuff you into a little box and suppress anyone's right to speak. Why can't this forum do the same, instead of being touchy-feely over every little comment?
I'd actually like to see you over there Polycarp. You'd fit in. I don't agree with what you believe regarding this topic, and we'd probably argue just as much over there as we do here, but...you at least make an effort to back up what you say, often without referencing the bible and just using common sense. Over there, people's ideas get put through the wringer, but the personal crap that goes on in here is a rarity.

Anyway, I'm done debating on this forum. I've clearly worn out my welcome by presenting an opposing viewpoint, so I'm just sticking to the computer & internet forum on this site. Besides, there are quite a few christians here who do a much better job at getting the message across than I do.
I enjoyed our conversations, and good luck with everything.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I know this point is off topic but if you take a literal view of scriptures then you have play on the women priests and pastors issue since scripture seems to indicate it was Paul’s opinion with the word “I do not” as opposed to “God does not“.

This line of reasoning would of course dismiss 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1:26-27 from being used to justify discrimination as they likewise are just “Paul’s opinion” Unless of course you are saying that these verses are somehow “different” as they apply to minorities and are useful in justifying discrimination and prejudice

On the other hand the ban of homosexual actions is clearly a righteous requirement of the Law and those were not negated with the entry into a new covenant. I am not sure “negated” is the correct word but it seems to be the best fit.



The problem with not taking the whole bible literally is that you end up cherry picking it which is a good way to end up in jail if you did it with man’s law. We can avoid all of that by living by the Spirit we receive when we follow Jesus and do what he commands.

Yet here you are happily cherry picking away. You speak of the new covenant and say the old laws were “negated” ….except for a few laws you personally cherry picked.

 

[Kerwin]

This line of reasoning would of course dismiss 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1:26-27 from being used to justify discrimination as they likewise are just “Paul’s opinion” Unless of course you are saying that these verses are somehow “different” as they apply to minorities and are useful in justifying discrimination and prejudice

Those scriptures are different first because Paul is speaking of the righteous requirements of the law and second because there is no indication that they are Paul’s opinion rather than the word of God.. Even when it is Paul’s opinion a reader should consider that Paul is full of the Holy Spirit and not of the Sinful nature you accuse him of being. I have to point out that it is righteous to discriminate against evil and wicked not to.

Yet here you are happily cherry picking away. You speak of the new covenant and say the old laws were “negated” ….except for a few laws you personally cherry picked.

Actually what I said is repeated in scripture to anyone who understands therefore it is not cherry picking.

4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

I have also seen Jews who speak of the section of the law and one section is considered the righteous requirements.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Could you show how? It sure looks like "marriage" is a man and a woman in the Gospel where Jesus teaches on the subject. And that's it.

After your response (and probably a response back from me), I'll be taking a break from this section for awhile.

I'm not agreeing to disagree with the opposing side, I'm just agreeing with how the Apostles/disciples wrote what they did.

A break? Polycarp_fan, you keep things lively around here. I hope it doesn't become too dull in your absence.

Now, I'm assuming that we are discussing Matt. 3:3 ff. where Jesus is disputing with the Pharisees about divorce. (The Pharisaic schools of Hillel and Shammai had different teachings about divorce. So they disputed with each other on the same subject.)

At Matt. 3:5 Jesus quotes from Genesis 2:24 to the effect that a man and woman "will be one flesh." The words in quotes are my own translation. In particular "will be." The word behind it in Greek is "esontai" a future, middle, indicative, third person plural form of "eimi" (I am). So "They will be" is an accurate rendering.

If this were a command or prescription, it could be stated in the imperative voice, or even as a "hortatory subjunctive." The future tense is sometimes used to express commands but only in the second person. So, this is much more likely a gnomic use of the future, that is, it describes the customary result of a condition.

Yes, Jesus is talking about one man and one woman as a marriage. That was the norm of marriage in Jesus' day and it is the norm of marriage in our own day. But it is not the commanded form of marriage. The Bible recognizes other forms of marriage, particularly polygamy and levirate marriage. Levirate marriage is, I think, actually commanded. The other forms of marriage are only described.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

You and I have had several conservations on this topic, and we rarely agree on each others viewpoints. So what do we do? I break out the Irony Hammer, and you thuh-whack me. Unless I'm severely mistaken, neither of us get offended by the other.

I never get offended in cyber space, and never in real life. Atheists in many cases have their hearts in the best place. If someone embraces atheism because of suffering and injustice then they are far closer to Jesus then some religious people I have met and know. But in all seriousness, I can no longer hold onto nongodianism. It literally doesn't make sense. If you notice, Christians are becoming less and less fearful of atheist perspective.

Thanks for noticing my sarcasm on the thuh-whack thing. I have debated atheists in person and on the radio and been complimented often. Nothing fascinates me more than why people believe what they do. I do though have limits I must stand firm on.

If we can "fight nice", why is it so difficult to be able to express opinions to others here?

Knee-jerk liberalism is indoctrianated into many people from their secular educations.

I'm on another forum (an atheist one), and the christians that come over there are free to preach the Gospel, etc. knowing that they will be challenged.

Rational Response Squad?

Their agruments go to the elitest rant department rather quickly. They freaked out over the 0 x 0 = atheism thing. They literally went and got some heavy weights to scream at me. They eventually banished the thread. I flippin' laughed for days.

People get hyped up and animated (both the atheists and the christians), but that's the beauty of it.

I see far more freaking out from the non conservatives 10 to 1.

You're free to be you. No one is trying to stuff you into a little box and suppress anyone's right to speak.

I am a free thinker. Actually it is the only way you can become a Christian. Yet, freethinkers scream at me that I cannot use the term.

Why can't this forum do the same, instead of being touchy-feely over every little comment?

I am hanging by a thread here. I think the way they run the site is excellence though. When you break the speed limit is absurd to get mad at the CHP writing you the ticket.

I'd actually like to see you over there Polycarp. You'd fit in. I don't agree with what you believe regarding this topic, and we'd probably argue just as much over there as we do here, but...you at least make an effort to back up what you say, often without referencing the bible and just using common sense.

My only concern is for my brothers and sisters in Christ. I protect them out of love. It's also a commandment of Jesus. I don;t think anyone realizes that I have never said to kick gays and lesbians out of the faith. I just oppose gay culture.

Over there, people's ideas get put through the wringer, but the personal crap that goes on in here is a rarity.

Sorry my friend, atheism is debated by rote. Literally by rote. I come from more of the camp of JP Holding over at tektonics.org then I do the camp of sweety nice guys. It is not a good thing to do but I am working on that side of my Christian life. I don;t know how to say someone is lying in a nice way.

Anyway, I'm done debating on this forum. I've clearly worn out my welcome by presenting an opposing viewpoint, so I'm just sticking to the computer & internet forum on this site. Besides, there are quite a few christians here who do a much better job at getting the message across than I do.

I enjoyed our conversations, and good luck with everything.

Thank you. You're a good guy. Some day, study the Bible to see if my positions hold up to the task in which I apply it. Obviously it isn't a proselytizing thing.

We Christian are encouraged to "contend for the faith . . ." and that is all I do.

 

[prettyfly4awhiteguy]

Ah, Onemessiah, u shouldn't stop posting here just because some people don't like what you have to say. I actually happen to agree with much of your posts, I just think you should try a more tactful approach. Some people don't know how to take others and naturally get defensive instead of listening to what's actually being said.
But if you really are bailing out of DoH, glad to see you left on a good note with some of the members here!

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Galatians 3:

26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

no difference between men and women=homosexual and heterosexual relationships equally valid
​

 

[Polycarp_fan]

A break? Polycarp_fan, you keep things lively around here. I hope it doesn't become too dull in your absence.

I doubt Lot was ever bored.

Now, I'm assuming that we are discussing Matt. 3:3 ff. where Jesus is disputing with the Pharisees about divorce. (The Pharisaic schools of Hillel and Shammai had different teachings about divorce. So they disputed with each other on the same subject.)

Divorce can only happen to a marriage. There is only one kind of marriage.

Interesting how historic Jesus was. You know, for a guy that never existed and all. (Psst, go here http://www.tektonics.org/shattering.html for a look)

At Matt. 3:5 Jesus quotes from Genesis 2:24 to the effect that a man and woman "will be one flesh." The words in quotes are my own translation. In particular "will be." The word behind it in Greek is "esontai" a future, middle, indicative, third person plural form of "eimi" (I am). So "They will be" is an accurate rendering.

Divorce, adultery, marriage. Still man/woman. Immutably so actually.

If this were a command or prescription, it could be stated in the imperative voice, or even as a "hortatory subjunctive."

We're going to hebrew, aramaic into english lessons? Marriage in any "biblical language is a man and a woman. All through the Bible.

The future tense is sometimes used to express commands but only in the second person. So, this is much more likely a gnomic use of the future, that is, it describes the customary result of a condition.

"gnomic?" Jesus was known for clever sayings, but on marriage he is as direct as it gets. Still man/woman.

Yes, Jesus is talking about one man and one woman as a marriage.

This is where "duh" enters the scholarly.

That was the norm of marriage in Jesus' day and it is the norm of marriage in our own day. But it is not the commanded form of marriage.

Uh, um, it is an absolute "command." You left out the part where this is "God's" set up. Man has no right to alter it. You can only "seperate" what God has joined and same-gender "marriage" is an impossiblity. The entire witness of the Bible attests to that.

The Bible recognizes other forms of marriage, particularly polygamy and levirate marriage. Levirate marriage is, I think, actually commanded. The other forms of marriage are only described.

And yet not one of them is same-gendered. Not even a hint, a suggestion or even by way of a clever saying.

I'm out of here for a time, a time and even more time. You'll find me in healthier places on this site for awhile.

PM me if you need a response.

Peace in Christ to all.

PCF

 

[OllieFranz]

I'll respond in full later, but a couple of things popped out at me even during my preliminary reading:

Me? I am standing firm on the Apostolic witness, coupled with and to the rest of the Bible, that there is no such thing as appropriate gay sex.

I was not "accusing" you specifically of anything. I was using a generic "you." --If you choose to do A, it is not because God failed to do B. Also "gay sex" was not the issue in that paragraph, adultery was. I know that I was not that unclear, so I have to wonder why you apparently find it necessary to twist my words.

Jesus detailed what a marriage is and He claims God set it forth this way. It's not my narrow definition. It is Jesus that makes the assertion. The context of his preaching came about from questions on divorce. "Divorce," "Marriage," there is not one thing vague about the teaching that marriage is exclusively a man and a woman. Every reference to husbands and wives in the New Testament is a man and a woman.

Nowhere in the Bible is marriage "defined" in terms of who may or may not contract a valid marriage. Only in terms of what is expected of the participants who are in that marriage. This includes Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19.

It is your assumption, based on misreading, mis-applying and mis-interpreting six passages in the Bible that all same-sex "sex acts" are forbidden, and if they are forbidden, then same-sex marriage cannot be sanctioned. This assumption colors your understanding of much of the rest of the scriptures. But that assumption, if true, would make God a Promise-breaker. I choose to believe that He keeps His promises.

It is impossible, that is why it cannot be known.

Circular reasoning. Above you claimed as one of your pieces of evidence against "gay marriage" that there are no examples in the Bible. Now you are claiming that it is "impossible" that Jonathan and David had a "gay marriage" because you "proved" that the Bible forbids it.

David took up Saul's offer to be "married into the family" with daughter number two. Was it yiu that tried to posit that Jonathan was marriage number one or two, or someone else? It's hard to keep up with all these threads. In any event, it was two different daughters Saul offered to David.[/QUOTE]

Yes, it is true that Saul had previously offered a different daughter, but that is not what the Bible says about what Saul was thinking at the time. The Hebrew Bible says that Saul believed David would become his son-in-law in two ways (that is, in another, second way). It says nothing about a second chance to become his son-in-law. That was added by a biased translator.

My exact perspective. Men love men in many intense ways not open to the woman/man experience. To say that David and Jonathan had to be lovers is reading into the text what is not there.

I agree that to say that Jonathan and David had to be lovers is reading more into the text than it chooses to reveal. That is why I never make that claim.

But as I said, the relationship that you claim for them is not adequate to the Biblical description. Jonathan had that relationship with others (at least one of which is detailed), but the Bible places his relationship with David on a higher level. You reminded me that there were those in David's camp wh had or attempted to have a relationship with David similar to the one you describe. Again, though, the relationship the Bible describes between Jonathan and David went beyond that.

It certainly gives credence that men can love men without any sexual intercurse attached to the love.

Of course they can! I never denied that. Most relationships like the ones we have discussed are non-sexual, and many are even non-sensual.

And even though Jonathan's and David's relationship went beyond that The Bible does not give us a reason to declare with certainty that their physical relationship went beyond the hugging, kissing and mutual weeping (yes I know, and even agree that they were more cultural than sexual) described in 1 Samuel 20.

But on the other hand, neither does it give us a reason to declare with certainty that it was "impossible."

"After" the death of Saul and Jonathan? David had been annointed before these guys fell in battle.

Yes, David was anointed before he ever first met Saul or Jonathan. But he was loyal to God's anointing of Saul, and did not press any claims of his own while the man first anointed king was alive.



No, it was worse. Jonathan's dad, was trying to murder the Lord's annointed. Jonathan submitted to the authority of God and God's annointed. Janathan is a hero on the lines of Uriah the Hittite.[/QUOTE]

Your timing is a little off here. At the time that Jonathan's soul was first knit with David's, neither Saul nor Jonathan knew David all that well. Jonathan only knew what he'd seen of the battle with Goliath, and even Saul did not know David well enough to recognize him as the singing shepherd who'd been called in once or twice to calm the king's troubled spirits.

Saul did not become jealous of David until later, when he had a few more military campaigns under his belt, and the public was comparing him (Saul) unfavorably to David.

Many friends know they were going to be friends the moment they meet. It is a common occurrence. Two young men in an incredible moment in history.

I agree. But their relationship was more than just "friends."

Reading into the text, what simply is not there. We have no idea if David loved all of his own children either. David was a complicated man without a shred of doubt about that, but what is an absolute, is that David married women, and that a man can love another man far more intensely than the love he has for a woman. In fact, if we were to examine that very phrase, we could easily see that "sex" has nothing to do with intense love at all.

Yes, it would be reading into the text what is not there to claim that their love included sex. THAT IS WHY I HAVE NEVER MADE THAT CLAIM.

It would also be reading into the text what is not there to claim that their love did not include sex. There is simply no Biblical witness to the presence or absence of a sexual aspect to their love. Your claims of "impossible" are based not on the text, but on inferences based on your faulty assumption that any form of "gay sex" under any possible circumstances is sin.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

I doubt Lot was ever bored.

Probably not, what with angel visitors and rapacious mobs and a wife turning into a salt lick and daughters plying him with wine...

Pity the story of Sodom has nothing to do with the topic of this forum.

Divorce can only happen to a marriage. There is only one kind of marriage.

Not even in the Bible is there only one kind of marriage.

Interesting how historic Jesus was. You know, for a guy that never existed and all. (Psst, go here http://www.tektonics.org/shattering.html for a look)

Are you talking to me? I'm a Christian, remember? I not only believe that Jesus was an historic person, but I worship him as the second person of the Trinity. I've read some of the "Jesus was a myth" stuff. I don't need an apologetics website to tell me it's agenda driven hooey.

Divorce, adultery, marriage. Still man/woman. Immutably so actually.

That's the norm, sure, but right-handedness is also a norm. Still, there are left-handed people. That's how norms work, they define a majority but do not necessarily exclude a minority.

We're going to hebrew, aramaic into english lessons? Marriage in any "biblical language is a man and a woman. All through the Bible.

That was Greek, chief, the only biblical language in which I claim any competence. But nowhere in Scripture do I find a an immutable definition of marriage, or a specific form of marriage commanded...except for that levirate thing.

And I'll stand by that point. There is nothing in the language of the passage in question that suggests a commandment. It is descriptive, not prescriptive.

"gnomic?" Jesus was known for clever sayings, but on marriage he is as direct as it gets. Still man/woman.

Yup, "gnomic" as defined above. Cool word, huh?

This is where "duh" enters the scholarly.

And rudeness the conversation. "Duh" is never as clever a rejoinder as the one using it thinks.

Uh, um, it is an absolute "command." You left out the part where this is "God's" set up. Man has no right to alter it. You can only "seperate" what God has joined and same-gender "marriage" is an impossiblity. The entire witness of the Bible attests to that.

I'm in no way denying that God joins a married couple. How is that a command, let alone an absolute one?

Now, just to shake things up a little bit, imagine that God might also join a covenanted, committed, consensual same-sex relationship...

It's an intriguing possibility.

And yet not one of them is same-gendered. Not even a hint, a suggestion or even by way of a clever saying.

Nope, there are no homosexual marriages in the Bible. There are all sorts of other marriages outside the one man/one woman norm, but I'll agree that there are no same-sex marriages.

There is also no notion of a heliocentric planetary system. Nor is there a recipe for steak and kidney pie. Arguments from silence don't mean a lot.

I'm out of here for a time, a time and even more time. You'll find me in healthier places on this site for awhile.

We all feel strongly. That's why we post here. It's hard to slog it out over and over again. I hope that your time away is productive. I'll be gone for a long weekend myself.

PM me if you need a response.

No. It's not necessary. Thanks.

Peace in Christ to all.

PCF

And peace to you Polycarp_fan

 

[Kerwin]

Galatians 3:

26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

no difference between men and women=homosexual and heterosexual relationships equally valid
​

That is certainly a socialist type reasoning than men can replace women and women can replace me but reality states differently as I have yet to see a man conceive, carry to term, or birth a baby. On the other hand God does judge both men and women by the same criteria and plays no favorites.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Jesus did not describe the norm of man/woman marriage, He described the creation purpose of woman being created for man, He also defined it as faithful and offered celibacy, which is no union at all, as the alternative. In addition all countenanced unions in the Bible are man/woman
The argument for same sex unions is non-existant. Its like saying 2+2 isnt necessarily always 4 just because there is no evidence fot it.
This is why the Christianity is dividing as most realise its merely total disbelief.

 

[CraigBaugher]

God loves all, and that includes Gays. It is not a sin to be Gay, it is only a sin to have homosexual sex. We are all sinners, and that is why the body dies. But through Christ the spirit lives. We as Christians do not live by the laws of the Old Testament, rather by Faith, in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is our faith that get us into heaven, for as much as we try not to sin, we all sin. We sin sometimes without even knowing it, e.g., when we hurt someone's feelings, or when we walk pass a beggar, or drive pass someone whose car is broken down and fail to stop. A sin, is a sin, is a sin, and they all are equal in nature in the eyes of God. Yet, as a Christian of Faith all those sins are forgiven.

So if you are Gay, and you have been saved and baptized and your faith is strong, and your heart is pure. If you live as Jesus wants us all to live, in loving others as we love ourselves, and treat others as we would treat ourselves or better, than your sin of your of not your relationship, but of any sex involved, May be forgiven. But that is the same guarantee the rest of us face.

The key is FAITH. For the bible clearly defines all sin, and most us know what sin is (and that is one purpose of the bible) and yet we sin - a white lie ("Yes Mr. Boss, that speach was perfect." "Yes Ms. Customer, that color is perfect for you. -- not for me, but for you"), accidental thief - "Hey darling, you have a pencil over your ear.", lust/adultery, "Wow! did you see that girl!", etc...

I am not telling you its right, but I am telling you, have FAITH and let God lead your path.

 

[OllieFranz]

Jesus did not describe the norm of man/woman marriage, He described the creation purpose of woman being created for man, He also defined it as faithful and offered celibacy, which is no union at all, as the alternative. In addition all countenanced unions in the Bible are man/woman
The argument for same sex unions is non-existant. Its like saying 2+2 isnt necessarily always 4 just because there is no evidence fot it.
This is why the Christianity is dividing as most realise its merely total disbelief.

Yes, the alternative to marriage is celibacy. Paul repeats that in 1 Corinthians 7:9, but prefaces it verses 7-8 with the statement that (lifelong) celibacy is a gift from God, and that not everyone was given that gift. When Jesus brought up celibacy, it was as one of three conditions for which a traditional male/female marriage would be inappropriate. The first was eunuchs, who are physically unable to consummate a marriage; the third is those with the gift of celibacy; and the second was "eunuchs" who were "born that way from their mothers womb."

Semitic languages (such as Hebrew and Aramaic) used the same word "saris" for both eunuch and another condition, differentiating the two by phrases such as "made by man" for physical eunuch, and "born ..." for those whose difference from "normal" men was what we would consider psychological or spiritual. An examination of the Talmud and of contemporary writings makes it clear that "born eunuchs" were what we would today call effeminate, and that most of them were gay.

Jesus clearly separates them from those for whom a traditional male/female marriage would be appropriate. He also separates them from those who have the gift for celibacy. Since the only two acceptable conditions are celibacy and marriage, neither celibacy nor traditional marriage is appropriate to "born eunuchs," the only alternative left is non-traditional marriage. To deny this is to call God a promise-breaker.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

That is certainly a socialist type reasoning than men can replace women and women can replace me but reality states differently as I have yet to see a man conceive, carry to term, or birth a baby. On the other hand God does judge both men and women by the same criteria and plays no favorites.

Its not a matter of anyone replacing anyone else, but way to drag the communist boogeyman in to prop up your POV

My point is that since the Bible clearly says there is no difference between men and women in God's eyes, then the gender of the participants in a relationship won't matter to Him either.

 

[Kerwin]

Its not a matter of anyone replacing anyone else, but way to drag the communist boogeyman in to prop up your POV

For the most part social equality issues are socialist. There are exceptions since legal equality is not but they are few from what I know. I am not sure as you are talking on cultural level and socialist tends to address the economical level. Still you argument that a man can replace a women or a woman replace a man at certain levels contradicts the difference of physical and biological structure of the two genders.

My point is that since the Bible clearly says there is no difference between men and women in God's eyes, then the gender of the participants in a relationship won't matter to Him either.

That is not what He states as it is quite plain that he made men to men and women to be women. He could have if he chose made our species bisexual where each individual could replace another for reproductive purposes.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII

Yes, the alternative to marriage is celibacy.

Exactly and celibacy is the absence of a union. So therefore man/woman marriage is not so much the norm, as the only option.

Paul repeats that in 1 Corinthians 7:9, but prefaces it verses 7-8 with the statement that (lifelong) celibacy is a gift from God, and that not everyone was given that gift.

There are two gifts, marriage and celibacy, sexual immorality isn’t a gift.
“1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.”

When Jesus brought up celibacy, it was as one of three conditions for which a traditional male/female marriage would be inappropriate. The first was eunuchs, who are physically unable to consummate a marriage; the third is those with the gift of celibacy; and the second was "eunuchs" who were "born that way from their mothers womb."

Nope, firstly the truths that Paul writes were received from the risen Lord, Matthew and Mark write what of recorded words of Jesus on the topic. Again in Matthew 19 Jesus offers faithful man/woman marriage or celibacy, born that way, made that way by men or chosen that way.

Semitic languages (such as Hebrew and Aramaic) used the same word "saris" for both eunuch and another condition, differentiating the two by phrases such as "made by man" for physical eunuch, and "born ..." for those whose difference from "normal" men was what we would consider psychological or spiritual. An examination of the Talmud and of contemporary writings makes it clear that "born eunuchs" were what we would today call effeminate, and that most of them were gay.

Gay is a modern concept and refers to sexual desire not how one is born. As to the Talmud, Jesus was correcting the understanding of the Jewish leaders of the time, with reference to the Talmud your thinking seems to be on the same lines as the Pharisees in this respect.

Since the only two acceptable conditions are celibacy and marriage, neither celibacy nor traditional marriage is appropriate to "born eunuchs," the only alternative left is non-traditional marriage. To deny this is to call God a promise-breaker.

Well yes it is as this is the option Jesus gives! When the Pharisees grumbled about faithful marriage Jesus offered celibacy. Whats non-traditional marriage? No mention of anything like that in the Bible.
Jesus did not describe the norm of man/woman marriage, He described the creation purpose of woman being created for man, He also defined it as faithful and offered celibacy, which is no union at all, as the alternative. In addition all countenanced unions in the Bible are man/woman
The argument for same sex unions is non-existant. Its like saying 2+2 isnt necessarily always 4 just because there is no evidence for it.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

For the most part social equality issues are socialist. There are exceptions since legal equality is not but they are few from what I know. I am not sure as you are talking on cultural level and socialist tends to address the economical level. Still you argument that a man can replace a women or a woman replace a man at certain levels contradicts the difference of physical and biological structure of the two genders.



That is not what He states as it is quite plain that he made men to men and women to be women. He could have if he chose made our species bisexual where each individual could replace another for reproductive purposes.

He did make humans bisexual... in that some humans are homosexual and some are heterosexual. Homosexuality is NOT about reproduction, or at least, not intended to result in reproduction of the homosexuals, however, homosexuality seems genetically linked to increasing the fertility of heterosexual carriers

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Gay is a modern concept and refers to sexual desire not how one is born

Baloney. Homosexuality is an inherent property of the human condition. Want links to stone age homosexual erotica?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII,
Gay is an ungodly concept. Attraction to the same sex is not necessarily an inherant human condition, as in built in or inborn. Neither is attraction to the opposite sex. But neither reflect what is right and wrong from God's point of view as demonstrated from the Biblical scriptures.
But my question to you was Whats non-traditional marriage? No mention of anything like that in the Bible.