Biblical support for gay sex? A simple question

[EnemyPartyII]

that’s just an unsupported claim again. I believe homosexuality is biologically dysfunctional as the male sex organ is designed biologically for the female one to reproduce, so same-sex attraction is biologically dysfunctional.

Homosexuality isn't an attempt at reproduction, it serves other purposes, therefore, the non-reproductive quality is not dysfunctional. Organs all have multiple functions, even the sex organs

 

[HaloHope]

Um... a man with a penis CAN be heterosexual or homosexual... what did you think?

Perhaps diagrams are required?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Of course there are, men lusting after men instead of women and committing indecent acts with other men is homosexual not heterosexual.

Lust is the problem, not homosexual unions.

Why would He not have? He created woman for man as Jesus said, so I should think that’s pretty obvious.

apparently he created homosexuals for other homosexuals... why would he have a problem with it? Homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, and it fulfills two people who otherwise would be condemned to a life of lonliness

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII

Um... a man with a penis CAN be heterosexual or homosexual... what did you think?

So it’s the penis that identifies the man, not the sexuality. My point.

Homosexuality isn't an attempt at reproduction,

That’s my point its dysfunctional biologically and God didn’t create it, God created woman to be with man.

Your thinking goes directly against the Biblical testimony. As it says in Romans 1 truth is suppressed by wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain.
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.

Lust is the problem, not homosexual unions.

no, the passage also says men committed indecent acts with other men and receive the punishment for their error, and its says men with men and women with women are unnatural relations. This is how we know same sex unions are error and not natural.

apparently he created homosexuals for other homosexuals... why would he have a problem with it? Homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, and it fulfills two people who otherwise would be condemned to a life of lonliness

He didn’t create boys for paedophiles or woman for adulterers, no He created woman for man, and this is exactly where your thinking is flawed. All He created was good and He created woman to be united with man.
Furthermore many either choose celibacy or are unable to marry. Your view cannot accept what is clearly defined as wrong. The rich man who tried to justify himself to Jesus about his wealth went away sad, so sad happens when people cant give up what they have to for Jesus.

 

[KCKID]

To KCKID,
Because I believe what the Bible says. Do you believe God made male and female for this reason that a man shall be united with his wife? Obviously not as you are advocating alternatives but the reason was woman for man.

You pretty well ignored my previous post because you had no answers, bms. But anyway, God gave us a mind and a will to think for ourselves. That's the difference between us and robots. Would you prefer that we perform specified coded instructions devoid of any diversity at all? Sure sounds like it. Woman for man. Man for women. You sound like a broken record. Why should you care? You're not God.

yes but thats irrelevant as some males are attracted to many women and some males are not attracted to anyone, your thinking juts suggests you trust your own ideas more than the Bible as the word of God.

You seem to have a problem with people thinking for themselves, bms. Do you feel threatened by this?

Sorry I dont so hetrosexual and homosexual, I do what God created, male/female, man/woman. Sexual attraction is irrelevant and not mentioned in the Bible. You are also like EnemyPartyII off topic.

Well, if I'm off topic then so are you. I was responding to your post. Male and female, female and male again. Why should you care who someone is sexually attracted to? Why is it even any of your business?

Assumption, what we do know is God didnt make Steve for Adam, but somehow you dont.

More to the point ...I don't much care. Why should you? It's none of your business or mine.

You can see what the Bible says but you cant accept it.

The Bible also says that slaughter, rape and genocide are okay too but that's something that I don't practice OR accept. Am I being disobedient?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To KCKID,

God gave us a mind and a will to think for ourselves. That's the difference between us and robots. Would you prefer that we perform specified coded instructions devoid of any diversity at all? Sure sounds like it. Woman for man. Man for women. You sound like a broken record. Why should you care? You're not God.

Well forget me, as I am not God, which is why I posed the question do you believe God made male and female for this reason that a man shall be united with his wife? Your answer says it sounds like it So you have used your mind to think for yourself, you have seen what God has said and done.

Why should you care who someone is sexually attracted to? Why is it even any of your business?

I don’t care and its of not any business of mine unless people want to share it with me.

More to the point ...I don't much care. Why should you? It's none of your business or mine.

Well it is my business to know what God has made and what God hasn’t made, as a Christian who has been told the truth I am to make disciples teaching them to obey all that Jesus taught, so I have to care what God has made.

The Bible also says that slaughter, rape and genocide are okay too but that's something that I don't practice OR accept. Am I being disobedient?

The Bible doesn’t say they are ok, that’s not Jesus Christ’s covenant and those who were slaughtered in OT Biblical history were enemies of God. Even in Leviticus 18 one can see that those who practice pagan acts are destroyed.
Jesus came to give life and freedom in and through Him, not sex.


So many claims about what the Bible says have no references.

 

[KCKID]

So many claims about what the Bible says have no references.

Christians debating such issues KNOW that these references exist so there's no point in presenting them every time a point is made. In fact, do you know that many an atheist IS an atheist BECAUSE of the references that show God to be a super-bully ...?

It's all well and good you using 'faith' to look beyond God's attrocities in the OT, bms, but those who use reasoning to temper their viewpoints DO have a reasonable case to question God.

 

[KCKID]

Anyway, does the Bible support 'gay' sex? No, it does not. Nor does it support 'straight' sex in regard to its recreational use. Sex was intended for 'begatting' and, to my knowledge, the Bible never gave actual instructions or diagrams as to how sex should be performed between anyone. I think the question asked in the OP is a rather pointless one.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To KCKID,

Christians debating such issues KNOW that these references exist so there's no point in presenting them every time a point is made.

How do you mean know? If a Christian knows that Genesis 2, Matthew 19, Mark 10, Eph 5 all affirm that the reason God created woman was to be united with man, and some don’t believe they obviously don’t know it. When others say gay sex is ok they don’t post any references.

In fact, do you know that many an atheist IS an atheist BECAUSE of the references that show God to be a super-bully ...?

But He isn’t a bully to those who love God, He is a loving Father, who has saved us from the human mess we see around us, those atheists I guess don’t believe or have their own ideas which they prefer.

It's all well and good you using 'faith' to look beyond God's attrocities in the OT, bms, but those who use reasoning to temper their viewpoints DO have a reasonable case to question God.

There are no atrocities of God in the OT, all God created was good . God said to Adam and Eve do not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge or you will surely die. The OT is about God’s people who trust and obey Him who don’t die by the sword. When the serpent challenged Eve in the garden of Eden he said ‘did God really say that’. Eve knew what God said but the serpent said “You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
Did God really say that is common unbelief.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To KCKID,

Anyway, does the Bible support 'gay' sex? No, it does not. Nor does it support 'straight' sex in regard to its recreational use. Sex was intended for 'begatting' and, to my knowledge, the Bible never gave actual instructions or diagrams as to how sex should be performed between anyone. I think the question asked in the OP is a rather pointless one.

Actaully we have some common ground I am delighted to say. The Bible dosnt support sex in regrd to recreational use.

 

[Brennin]

Is there anything in the teachings of Jesus that promotes or justifies prejudice or discrimination?

Yes, when directed against false doctrines and those who peddle them.

 

[KCKID]

Is there anything in the teachings of Jesus that promotes or justifies prejudice or discrimination?

​

Yes, when directed against false doctrines and those who peddle them.

This kind of remark needs to be nipped in the bud. It has NOTHING to do with homosexuality but is deceptively used to imply that it somehow HAS to do with homosexuality!

Jesus said NOTHING about homosexuality so he obviously did not promote prejudice or discrimination against them! A false doctrine has NOTHING to do with homosexuality since homosexuality is NOT a doctrine! Homosexuals and anti 'anti-gays' are obviously NOT peddling a false doctrine because, as mentioned, one's sexual orientation is not a doctrine to begin with!

 

[EnemyPartyII]

So it’s the penis that identifies the man, not the sexuality. My point.

Did anyone say anything else? Of course a person's gender is identified by his genitals. But thats different to his sexual orientation, which is NOT determined by his genitals.

no, the passage also says men committed indecent acts with other men and receive the punishment for their error, and its says men with men and women with women are unnatural relations. This is how we know same sex unions are error and not natural.

The verse mentions "indecent acts", it says nothing about homosexuality.

That’s my point its dysfunctional biologically and God didn’t create it, God created woman to be with man.

You can say homosexuality is biologically dysfunctional as often as you like, it doesn't make it true. The FACT that homosexuality is a biological commonplace strongly supports the theory that homosexuality is a beneficial trait within populations.

as for your claim that God didn't create homosexuality, good luck finding a verse to support THAT claim... since the Bible states explicetly that God created us in his own image. Including homosexuals.

He didn’t create boys for paedophiles or woman for adulterers, no He created woman for man, and this is exactly where your thinking is flawed. All He created was good and He created woman to be united with man.
Furthermore many either choose celibacy or are unable to marry. Your view cannot accept what is clearly defined as wrong. The rich man who tried to justify himself to Jesus about his wealth went away sad, so sad happens when people cant give up what they have to for Jesus.

I'll ask you again, other than "the Bible SEZ!" what, specifically, is so wrong with homosexuality? If celibacy is acceptible, why isn't homosexuality, since the net biological outcome in reproductive terms of celibacy and homosexual intimacy is the same, whats the difference?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII

Did anyone say anything else?

yes you
You wrote

Homosexuality is not biological dysfunction, and homosexuals are still identified as men and women by their sex organs

If someone says they are homosexual that doesn’t tell me whether they are male or female. The basic physical biology is the sex of the person determined by their sexual reproductive organs.
Until you can recognise that observable fact you wont be able to recognise that consequently desire for someone of the same sex is dysfunctional.

no, the passage also says men committed indecent acts with other men and receive the punishment for their error, and its says men with men and women with women are unnatural relations. This is how we know same sex unions are error and not natural.

The verse mentions "indecent acts", it says nothing about homosexuality.

Yes it does, it says men committing acts with men instead of with women, and such acts are un-natural and indecent.

That’s my point its dysfunctional biologically and God didn’t create it, God created woman to be with man.

You can say homosexuality is biologically dysfunctional as often as you like, it doesn't make it true. The FACT that homosexuality is a biological commonplace strongly supports the theory that homosexuality is a beneficial trait within populations.

Well you see that’s arguable as well, you can say that as many times as you like but it doesn’t make it true either. I maintain homosexuality is sexual attraction and no different from any other attraction sexual or otherwise. In what way is such an attraction heterosexual or homosexual, different from attraction to trainspotting or paedophila?

as for your claim that God didn't create homosexuality, good luck finding a verse to support THAT claim...

No that’s your job to find a verse to support the idea that God created homosexuality. I have given you verses to show God created woman to be with man which is in your terms heterosexual. The onus is on you to provide Biblical evidence, especially on this thread which asks for it.

I'll ask you again, other than "the Bible SEZ!" what, specifically, is so wrong with homosexuality?

Its dysfunctional, but on this section of the forum, I like many Christians who believe the Bible and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, quote you the Biblical references as the benchmark of truth.
The issue does not seem to be about homosexuality so much as the truth of the Biblical testimony.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

If someone says they are homosexual that doesn’t tell me whether they are male or female. The basic physical biology is the sex of the person determined by their sexual reproductive organs.
Until you can recognise that observable fact you wont be able to recognise that consequently desire for someone of the same sex is dysfunctional.

You're talking total apples and oranges... male/female is determined by sexual organs, sure. sexual orientation is determined by other factors. People with male genitalia can be both hetero or homosexual. People with female genitalia can be both hetero or homosexual.

You claim same sex attraction is a dysfunction... OK... lets try this a different way... dysfunction suggests an attempted function that does not work... so what is it that homosexuals are trying to do that they are incapable of? And remember, pro-creation is NOT the purpose of homosexual sex, so don't even try that one... Go on, what function isn't working properly?

Well you see that’s arguable as well, you can say that as many times as you like but it doesn’t make it true either. I maintain homosexuality is sexual attraction and no different from any other attraction sexual or otherwise. In what way is such an attraction heterosexual or homosexual, different from attraction to trainspotting or paedophila?

trainspotting is a hobby, with no supporting evidence for a genetic basis. I am unaware of any gentic predisposition towards paedophilia. Homosexuality, however, appears to be genetically influenced.

But heck, even if we decide paedophilia IS a genuine "orientation" so what? Doesn't change the fact that adult consentual homosexuality harms no one, while paedophilia does.

No that’s your job to find a verse to support the idea that God created homosexuality. I have given you verses to show God created woman to be with man which is in your terms heterosexual. The onus is on you to provide Biblical evidence, especially on this thread which asks for it.

God created humans in his own image... I already told you, sorry to derail you mid rant.

Its dysfunctional, but on this section of the forum, I like many Christians who believe the Bible and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, quote you the Biblical references as the benchmark of truth.
The issue does not seem to be about homosexuality so much as the truth of the Biblical testimony.

Am I correct in assuming that this means, other than "The Bible SEZ!" you can't think of a logically consistent reason to consider homosexual relationships immorral? I didn't think so.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII,
Perhaps if we stand back a bit.
I have pricipally offered direct references to the unique purpose of woman and man to be united in God'd creation purpose, Genesis 2 Matthew 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 6, the direct condemnation of same sex union Genesis 19, Leviticus 18 & 20, 1 Corinthains 6, 1 Tim 1, and Romans 1, and the indirect condematon 2 Peter 2 and Jude 1.
I notice that you and others are not only unable to quote the specific verses of the texts I quote, but unwilling to acknowledge what they say you have only offered support for gay sex as 1 Samual and the Davd and Jonathan account and the Centurion with the slave in Luke and Matthew.
I have to say that both these are assumptions and do not actual describe a sexual or marriage type union. The assumption of centurion is ludicrous, the text nether says nor hints at any pederasty taking place, but we do know a soldier is employed to fight and the doulos/pais may have been a slave servant. If one were to accept the possibility that Jesus was condoning homsoexual practice, one would have already logically have accepted slavery. Yet it seems an anti-slavery stance is taken by those who support gay sex.

But anyway at the moment even allowing for that its 13 against two from the Bible that homosexaul practice is error if all the evidence is matched up.

Now I would like to offer this.
1 Corinthians 7 says "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 "
There is no reference to any men with men or women with women
Throughout the whole chapter there is reference to man and woman in marriage, or celibacy. There is no reference to man with man or woman with woman.

The husband and the wife 1 Timothy 3:2, "Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,"
1 Timothy 3:12 "A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well."
Titus 1:6 "An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient."
Where are the opportunities and references for men with men?

The Bridegroom and the Bride, Matthew 5, 25, Mark 2, Luke 5, John 2, 3, all the Bridgrooms are male, no idication any brides are male.

Here is another...
1 Corinthans 11:9 "neither was man created for woman, but woman for man."

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII

You're talking total apples and oranges... male/female is determined by sexual organs, sure. sexual orientation is determined by other factors.

That’s my point, the basic physical biology is the sex of the person determined by their sexual reproductive organs, their particular sexual attraction is not relevant to function, therefore desire for someone of the same sex being dysfunctional, is error.

trainspotting is a hobby, with no supporting evidence for a genetic basis. I am unaware of any genetic predisposition towards paedophilia. Homosexuality, however, appears to be genetically influenced.

Ah but are they looking for the straight gene? Are you saying only homosexuals have a gene which causes sexual attraction? Why aren’t they looking for straight genes or paedophile genes then they could find a genetic cure for them?

But heck, even if we decide paedophilia IS a genuine "orientation" so what? Doesn't change the fact that adult consentual homosexuality harms no one, while paedophilia does.

But that’s a different argument altogether and I am not sure paedophiles would agree with you and neither do I as I believe all sexual activity outside marriage is harmful 1 Corinthians 6:18-20 If genetic deternones what is natural then why interfere with genes which cause disease?
Where is your Biblical evidence for genetics? This thread is about the Bible.

God created humans in his own image... I already told you, sorry to derail you mid rant.

Yes he created woman for man as in Genesis 2. and its not a rant its just the onus is on you and you make no attempt. I know you cant as all the evidence proves the magnitude of the error of homosexual practice.
So you agree
Gen 1:27 “So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
And
Matt 19: that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'.

So where is your man and man or woman and woman if God made them in his image so that a man shall be united with his wife? Jesus compares the union of man and woman, bridegroom and bride with Himself and His church.

Am I correct in assuming that this means, other than "The Bible SEZ!" you can't think of a logically consistent reason to consider homosexual relationships immorral? I didn't think so.

firstly I don’t have to, as I have just explained that’s not the purpose of the thread, and secondly I can and have done at the start of this post.

The onus is on you to provide biblical passages to support gay sex, that God created humans in His own image is proof He didn’t create people’s sexuality or He would have created adulterers and those who practice homosexuality, paedophilia and all the other sexual immorality the Bible warns about.

 

[Brennin]

This kind of remark needs to be nipped in the bud. It has NOTHING to do with homosexuality but is deceptively used to imply that it somehow HAS to do with homosexuality!

Jesus said NOTHING about homosexuality so he obviously did not promote prejudice or discrimination against them! A false doctrine has NOTHING to do with homosexuality since homosexuality is NOT a doctrine! Homosexuals and anti 'anti-gays' are obviously NOT peddling a false doctrine because, as mentioned, one's sexual orientation is not a doctrine to begin with!

The false doctrine is that homoeroticism is consonant with God's law. And Jesus addressed gay "unions" in Mark 10:6-9 and Matthew 19:4-6. When Jesus disagreed with the tenets of Judaism he went on at length about it; he did not go on at length about the Levitical proscription against homoeroticism because he endorsed it. So sorry, but you lose.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

The false doctrine is that homoeroticism is consonant with God's law. And Jesus addressed gay "unions" in Mark 10:6-9 and Matthew 19:4-6. When Jesus disagreed with the tenets of Judaism he went on at length about it; he did not go on at length about the Levitical proscription against homoeroticism because he endorsed it. So sorry, but you lose.

Mark 10:6-9 and Matthew 19:4-6 say nothing about same sex unions.

Nor can you read Jesus' silence on the subject of the Levitical laws concerning men lying with men as tacit approval.

Arguments from silence are not very useful.

 

[Brennin]

Mark 10:6-9 and Matthew 19:4-6 say nothing about same sex unions.

Nor can you read Jesus' silence on the subject of the Levitical laws concerning men lying with men as tacit approval.

Arguments from silence are not very useful.

What part of:

"Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfill"

Don't you understand?

And Mark 10:6-9 and Matthew 19:4-6 most certainly say something about same sex "unions." Kindly remove your head from the sand.