Proposition 8 in California must pass!

[Dogbean]

And yet, as I've said - I've studied and re-studied the verses commonly brought up to make this assertion, and I've found that they don't say what I've been told they say. If someone, somewhere, could present a clear, cut-and-dried Biblical argument that either same-gender sexual activity is 100% sinful, or even that same-gender sexual attraction is 100% sinful, I'd accept that. Trouble is, there is no such Biblical argument.

Oh really? You have found that out huh? Then why don't most Biblical scholars agree with you? I gave you a clear arguement that homosexual sex is sin.

The Bible does not say in a clear cut way "do not smoke" but we can probably agree that smoking is not glorifying to God, because we are called to take care of our bodies since they are the "temple of the Holy Spirit."

The Bible does not say "Don't tell off your boss at work" but it's pretty clear that we should not do that.

Just because there's no cut and dried statement doesn't mean jack squat, David. Step back and look at the big picture, and then pray the Holy Spirit convicts you of your sin.

 

[Dogbean]

As for the OP, this whole arguement about California is moot anyway. I don't see why this vote would be successful. Twice before, the people of CA have clearly voted to ban gay marriage, and the liberal supreme court of CA forced gay marriage on us anway. The will of the people was trampled on by the courts. Why would this vote be any different? The flaming libs will always find a way to force this on us. CA is the most liberal state in the union.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To David Brider,

What makes you think that, though?

Because of what it says. What makes you think it doesn’t mean what it says?

For that matter, how are you defining "homosexual practice"?

I am not I am saying the Bible does. How are you defining it if not men with men instead of with women? Which is it, homosexual or heterosexual?

I've yet to come across any translations that render the verses before 18:22 as "do not lie with" or "do not lie carnally with" - which translations are you thinking of?

Ok let me take this bit by bit.

I've yet to come across

Whether you have discovered them or not is irrelevant, the fact is they exist.

any translations that render the verses before 18:22 as "do not lie with" or "do not lie carnally with" - which translations are you thinking of?

Well I wasn’t thinking of verses only before Lev 18:22, nor did I say so, so why were you? In fact, Leviticus 18:20 in the KJV does, so you are wrong, and I was referring to Lev 18:20, 22 and 23.

 

[David Brider]

Oh really? You have found that out huh? Then why don't most Biblical scholars agree with you? I gave you a clear arguement that homosexual sex is sin.

No, you posted a couple of verses which you believed addressed the issue of homosexuality, and I pointed out that - as far as I can tell - they don't

The Bible does not say in a clear cut way "do not smoke" but we can probably agree that smoking is not glorifying to God, because we are called to take care of our bodies since they are the "temple of the Holy Spirit."

The Bible does not say "Don't tell off your boss at work" but it's pretty clear that we should not do that.

In the case of smoking, yes, I'd agree with you.

In the case of telling of one's boss, in most circumstances I'd agree with you, although if my boss started behaving badly I might be inclined to call her to task. And particularly if one's boss is a Christian, we would expect to live by pretty broadly Christian standards of behaviour and to feel they were letting the side down somewhat and to have a quiet word with them.

In the case of homosexual sex, as I've said time and again - I'm aware of all the verses which are usually presented to demonstrate that homosexual sex is a sin. And I've read them, and studied them, and prayed through the issues, and realised that they just don't actually say what some people think they say.

And given that I can't think of any other reason to argue against homosexual sex per se (I mean, sure, unprotected homosexual sex carries with it the risk of STDs, but then the same is true of unprotected heterosexual sex, and I've never seen that used as an argument against heterosexual sex in general), my personal inclination is to the belief that ultimately, it doesn't matter. The world's not going to fall apart just because of what a couple of consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their bedrooms, and my life isn't negatively impacted by it, and neither's yours.

Just because there's no cut and dried statement doesn't mean jack squat, David.

What, then - IYO - does it mean? It seems to me that if the Bible doesn't make a specific statement on a particular issue (and on homosexuality it doesn't, whilst on homosexual sex the handful of statements it's been purported to make don't stand up to scrutiny in terms of the statements they're alleged to make), then it seems to me that the only valid course of action is to simply accept that the Bible doesn't say anything specific about that issue, rather than arguing the toss about it.

Step back and look at the big picture, and then pray the Holy Spirit convicts you of your sin.

Any sin in particular, or just sin in general?

David.

 

[David Brider]

To David Brider,

Because of what it says.

What it says is "do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman."

It doesn't say anything about homosexuality. It doesn't say anything about homosexual sex. It just says "do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman."

What makes you think it doesn’t mean what it says?

Actually, I do think it means what it says. I don't think it means anything else in addition to that.

For that matter, how are you defining "homosexual practice"?

I am not I am saying the Bible does.

Nor am I. I'm asking you how you define it.

Perhaps I could have been a bit clearer with my question. When you use the phrase "homosexual practice", are you referring to anything, literally anything, that a homosexual person might do? Or are you specifically referring to same-gender sexual acts?

I've yet to come across any translations that render the verses before 18:22 as "do not lie with" or "do not lie carnally with" - which translations are you thinking of?

Ok let me take this bit by bit.

Whether you have discovered them or not is irrelevant, the fact is they exist.

Well I wasn’t thinking of verses only before Lev 18:22, nor did I say so, so why were you? In fact, Leviticus 18:20 in the KJV does, so you are wrong, and I was referring to Lev 18:20, 22 and 23.

You don't seem to be understanding the point I'm making, so I'll try to explain it by quoting a large chunk of Leviticus. NIV, as that's the version I've got to hand.

6 'No-one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.

7 'Do not dishonour your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.
8 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonour your father.
9 'Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.
10 'Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter; that would dishonour you.
11 'Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's wife, born to your father; she is your sister.
12 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your father's close relative.
13 'Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she is your mother's close relative.
14 'Do not dishonour your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.
15 'Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son's wife; do not have relations with her.
16 'Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonour your brother.
17 'Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.
18 'Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.
19 'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.
20 'Do not have sexual relations with your neighbour's wife and defile yourself with her.

Right. So far, so good. Just to clarify, that's 15 verses, all of which start with a phrase which is translated "do not have sexual relations with..." in the NIV and many other translations, and as "do not expose the nakedness of..." in many of the other translations available. There are a very few which translate the phrase in some other way, but they're very much the exception rather than the norm.

So, moving on...

21 'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.

Okay, clearly nothing to do with sexual activity. Let's just skip past one verse...

23 'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

So, verse 23 basically follows on with the same wording as that used in verses 6 - 20. That's 16 verses all saying much the same thing. Do not have sexual relations with.... Or, in some translations, Do not expose the nakedness of...

And then, going back a verse, we have:

22 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

As I've said - this verse doesn't use the phrase which is ordinarily translated as "do not have sexual relations with..." or "do not expose the nakedness of...". Rather, it uses this very specific, and rather clunky, phrase that gets translated as "do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman." Again, there are exceptions to this, but they are very much exceptions rather than the norm. So, given that this verse doesn't say "do not have sexual relations with..." (or "do not expose the nakedness of..."), it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to think that it's not likely to be referring to sexual activity. If that were the writer's intent, he was perfectly capable of using the same phrase he'd used in 16 other verses of that very same chapter. "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one has sexual relations with a woman" would be really cut and dried and probably end any disagreement stone dead. But that's not what it says.

Is it?

David.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Big Bad Wolf, haven't we been round and round on this enough in our earlier discussions? I told you over and over again that I am not prejudiced against gays and lesbians.

The answer remains. Racists use the bible to justify their personal prejudice in exactly the same way you use the bible… You did ask the question.

They are sinners who need to be reached out to in love.

Which is what racists say about blacks, they are sinners defying God’s law

And I can love them personally without having the government extend to them the benefits of marriage.

Again exactly what racists say that they can extend love to (correctly behaving blacks) without having the government corrupt the word of God and granting blacks civil rights including legal recognition of interracial marriage.

Marriage has been instituted by God to be the union of one man and one woman, and it is sacred.

again no different form the rhetoric a racist would use to define marriage to justify discrimination

Your problem is with the definition of marriage. Your faith icon says you are catholic; that means you read the same Bible I do. You should know and understand this.

are you suggesting that only True Christians™ are those who agree with you?

Times are changing but God's Word does not.

and this is why it is an abomination to eat shellfish because God and his laws do not change
it is a sin to wear wedding rings because God and his laws do not change
it is a sin to allow people with glasses into a church because God and his laws do not change
it is a sin to wear clothing made of different fabrics because God and his laws do not change
the fact God does not change is why Christians make burnt offerings because God and his laws do not change
we keep slaves because God and his laws do not change
we force rape victims to marry their attacker because God and his laws do not change

And just because I cling to God's view of marriage does not mean I am prejudiced toward anyone.

that view being polygamous…right?

And when a racist claims he/she is just holding to God’s view of racial equality it must mean that they aren’t prejudice either…right?

And while I will continue to support any legislation to preserve what marriage is, I will never think of gays and lesbians as substandard people or less than what I am, and I will love them just like anyone else.

You just vote for discrimination and to ensure they are second class citizens. Again how is this any different for a racist who votes against civil rights?

 

[BigBadWlf]

In other words, you can't.

You obviously don't know how this whole argument thing works. You made the assertion. Thus, the onus is on you to provide the evidence.

You made the claim that the word arsenokoites does not have a history of being translated to mean masturbation. Yet you provided no evidence.

You made the claim that “There is every justification”…to translate the word arsenokoites to mean homosexual. Yet you provided no evidence to support this translation

You made the claim that Dale Martin is not an actual scholar . Yet you provided no evidence to support this. Can you show his credentialing is false? That he falsified his education? OR do you make this claim only because he does not share you personal prejudices?


You made the claim that Paul “coined the term and he did so with Levitivus in mind” Yet you provided no evidence to support this.

You made the claim that arsenokoites “literally denotes "men who bed men."” Yet you provided no evidence to support this.

See the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13.

The septuagint says "kai meta arsenos ou koimêthêsê koitên gynaikos bdelygma gar estin"


Breaking this down:
The greek "Kai" is "and", and "meta" is roughly "with". The Hebrew equivalent ("ve'et") is "and with". "koimethese" roughly means "the same as".

"to'evah" ("To'ebah") is the word normally translated as abomination. But "to'ebah" doesn't mean sin, and is nowhere as strong as "abomination"; "zimah" means sin, and would have been used if a word that strong was meant. The septuagint has "bdelygma", which only means "ritually impure".

In Hebrew "human"/"teracotta"(colour) is "adama". And man is "ish"/"esh"; "ishah" is "woman". But the word translated as "man" in 18:22 is actually "zakar", which is a very different word entirely. "zakar" elsewhere in the Torah is only used to refer to men who are somehow sanctified.

The Septuagint uses similarly unusual wording "arsenos" means "male" (as opposed to "man" ["andros"]). "gunaikos" means "woman" [as in "gynacology"], but can idiomatically refer to "wife", as in "my woman".

The hebrew "tishkav" (the core being "ishkv") means "lie down", although this can also be used to mean "sex". "mishk'vei" (again having "ishk'v" as the core) means "(thing in which) laying down occurs" - "layings", ie. "bed".

It is important to note that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 the word that is used is shakab, which is popularly translated to mean to lay (lie) with but there is a problem with that translation. Shakab is used 52 times in the old testament and is always used to a sexual encounter typified by deceit or force, in other words, some type of rape.

"koite" means "marriage bed". The etymology behind this is a plural noun ("beds of"). The use of the plural where it would not be expected suggests an idiomatic expression (compare "to lay with" rather than to "lie with" in English: to lay or be laid is always a transitive verb and of archaic form; "to lie" is modern and can be intransitive.)

It is illustrative to look at another pairing of arseno and koitai in the Torah Gen 35:22. Here the topic cannot be construed to have anything to do with homosexuality. The passage refers to Reuben laying with his father Jacob’s concubine, specifically having a sexual tryst with a woman who belonged to his father.

This argument may seem strange to modern ears, but it should be remembered that Leviticus 18:22 was written in a context where polygamy was normal and sexual fidelity to one partner strange. In such a context, it could easily be argued that the only reason for condemning promiscuity and adultery was the risk involved of pregnancy in the absence of clear paternal liability. In such circumstances the father could disown his causal responsibility for the child and burden some other man with its upbringing.

So the septuagint is literally condemning adultery, specifically adultery where one of the participants is a sanctified man and that condemnation is limited to changing his status to one of ritual impurity. It is not making any generalized statement about homosexuality or even male to male sex. The only way it could be construed to mean male on male sex is if both men were sanctified or married to a woman in which case the sin would be adultery not homosexuality.

 

[BigBadWlf]

To David Brider,

The problem is that this verse describes homosexual practice, so for you to look at whether it says anything about homosexuality is to miss what it says in the first place.
And ‘do not lie with’ and ‘do not lie carnally with’ You haven’t given the whole picture.
It is impossible to see this chapter about anything other than sexual activities including a man lying with a man as with a woman. how can that verse not be talking about male-male sex?

Ok that’s your choice, I would say it clearly is and your objection is illogical.

Leviticus has many injunctions against engaging in sex – specifically carnal knowledge. However carnal knowledge is not used in either Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 the word that is used is shakab. It is popularly translated to mean to lay (lie) with but there is a problem with that translation. Shakab is used 52 times in the old testament and is always used to a sexual encounter typified by deceit or force, in other words, some type of rape.


Shakab Means "Rape" not copulation, not carnal relations…rape.


Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 means that a man shall not force, or in any way coerce, another man to have sex, in the way that a man is allowed to force sex upon his wife. In other words, man is not allowed to rape a man, it is an abomination.
A man raping a man is no more a description of homosexuality than a man raping a woman is a description of heterosexuality.

 

[BigBadWlf]

David, why do you fight this so hard? Why so insistant? "Fornicators" covers the promiscuity you mention.

Why do you fight the facts so hard?
Why so insistent?

It means homosexual.

Evidence?

God does not approve of homosexual practice. Bottom line.

Evidence?

You need to stop coming up with loopholes and accept that God does not approve of gay behavior. Stop trying to justify it.

You need to stop coming up with loopholes and denials and accept that God does not approve of prejudice. Stop trying to justify it

 

[BigBadWlf]

Oh really? You have found that out huh? Then why don't most Biblical scholars agree with you?

An appeal to authority. Remember a century ago most biblical scholars agreed that blacks were social inferiors to whites.

I gave you a clear arguement that homosexual sex is sin.

Leviticus. Not clear at all.

The Bible does not say in a clear cut way "do not smoke" but we can probably agree that smoking is not glorifying to God, because we are called to take care of our bodies since they are the "temple of the Holy Spirit."

How is smoking in any way comparable to an individual’s sexual orientation?

The Bible does not say "Don't tell off your boss at work" but it's pretty clear that we should not do that.

The bible actually does give something like such an injunction…though the bible is only addressing slaves not specifically workers.

Just because there's no cut and dried statement doesn't mean jack squat, David. Step back and look at the big picture, and then pray the Holy Spirit convicts you of your sin.

You just said there is clear evidence and now you are saying the opposite. So which is it?

 

[KCKID]

What it says is "do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman."

It doesn't say anything about homosexuality. It doesn't say anything about homosexual sex. It just says "do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman."

Actually, I do think it means what it says. I don't think it means anything else in addition to that.

Nor am I. I'm asking you how you define it.

Perhaps I could have been a bit clearer with my question. When you use the phrase "homosexual practice", are you referring to anything, literally anything, that a homosexual person might do? Or are you specifically referring to same-gender sexual acts?

You don't seem to be understanding the point I'm making, so I'll try to explain it by quoting a large chunk of Leviticus. NIV, as that's the version I've got to hand.

Right. So far, so good. Just to clarify, that's 15 verses, all of which start with a phrase which is translated "do not have sexual relations with..." in the NIV and many other translations, and as "do not expose the nakedness of..." in many of the other translations available. There are a very few which translate the phrase in some other way, but they're very much the exception rather than the norm.

So, moving on...

Okay, clearly nothing to do with sexual activity. Let's just skip past one verse...

So, verse 23 basically follows on with the same wording as that used in verses 6 - 20. That's 16 verses all saying much the same thing. Do not have sexual relations with.... Or, in some translations, Do not expose the nakedness of...

And then, going back a verse, we have:

As I've said - this verse doesn't use the phrase which is ordinarily translated as "do not have sexual relations with..." or "do not expose the nakedness of...". Rather, it uses this very specific, and rather clunky, phrase that gets translated as "do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman." Again, there are exceptions to this, but they are very much exceptions rather than the norm. So, given that this verse doesn't say "do not have sexual relations with..." (or "do not expose the nakedness of..."), it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to think that it's not likely to be referring to sexual activity. If that were the writer's intent, he was perfectly capable of using the same phrase he'd used in 16 other verses of that very same chapter. "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one has sexual relations with a woman" would be really cut and dried and probably end any disagreement stone dead. But that's not what it says.

Is it?

David.

Whichever side of the fence one might sit regarding this issue - whether member or visitor - that was a thorough and thought-provoking post, David. Well done.

 

[BigBadWlf]

As for the OP, this whole arguement about California is moot anyway. I don't see why this vote would be successful.

an august 29 survey conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California finds that 54% f voters oppose the amendment compared to 40%. Looks bad for those endorsing discrimination

Twice before, the people of CA have clearly voted to ban gay marriage,

it should be noted that the people of Arizona voted to reject such a ban two years ago. Yet the far right has shoved through an identical proposal again forcing ANOTHER vote on the same issue. Do you object to that?

and the liberal supreme court of CA forced gay marriage on us anway.

shame on them. Actually reading the constitution of the state and saying that discrimination against a minority is wrong. What about the right to hate minorities???

The will of the people was trampled on by the courts. Why would this vote be any different? The flaming libs will always find a way to force this on us. CA is the most liberal state in the union.

just like in 1967 when those darn liberal justices on the Supreme Court ignored the will of the people struck down laws against interracial marriage.

Or like in 1936 when those darn liberals said it was actually a crime for good honest white Christians to kidnap and murder random black men

Or like what happened in 1956 when those evil and sick liberal justices defied the express will of the people and said that segregation was against the law

Those darn liberals ...trampling on the rights of poor defenseless bigots…they should be ashamed of themselves. [/sarcasm]

 

[EnemyPartyII]

A concrete example from my state involved a golf course that was forced to provide the same discount to the domestic partner of a lesbian as they would to a spouse in a real marriage.

So, let me get this straight... you want to deny people the chance for life long hapiness, stability and commitment, because of a potential 2.5% increase in spousal discounts at a golf club?

Further, if all the homosexual couples you are so concerned about getting spousal discounts, went out and ex-gay ministried and became heterosexuals, and got married to heterosexual partners... wouldn't they be candidates for the same discount?

I mean, the net number of marriages doesn't increase any, does it?

 

[Brennin]

You made the claim that the word arsenokoites does not have a history of being translated to mean masturbation. Yet you provided no evidence.

This is not difficult. You made the claim and I disputed it. The onus is on you to provide the evidence.

You made the claim that “There is every justification”…to translate the word arsenokoites to mean homosexual. Yet you provided no evidence to support this translation

I most certainly did.

You made the claim that Dale Martin is not an actual scholar . Yet you provided no evidence to support this. Can you show his credentialing is false? That he falsified his education? OR do you make this claim only because he does not share you personal prejudices?

I made the claim because he is inept.

You made the claim that Paul “coined the term and he did so with Levitivus in mind” Yet you provided no evidence to support this.

What part of "see the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13" don't you apprehend?

You made the claim that arsenokoites “literally denotes "men who bed men."” Yet you provided no evidence to support this.

Yes I did.

The septuagint says "kai meta arsenos ou koimêthêsê koitên gynaikos bdelygma gar estin"


Breaking this down:
The greek "Kai" is "and", and "meta" is roughly "with". The Hebrew equivalent ("ve'et") is "and with". "koimethese" roughly means "the same as".

"to'evah" ("To'ebah") is the word normally translated as abomination. But "to'ebah" doesn't mean sin, and is nowhere as strong as "abomination"; "zimah" means sin, and would have been used if a word that strong was meant. The septuagint has "bdelygma", which only means "ritually impure".

In Hebrew "human"/"teracotta"(colour) is "adama". And man is "ish"/"esh"; "ishah" is "woman". But the word translated as "man" in 18:22 is actually "zakar", which is a very different word entirely. "zakar" elsewhere in the Torah is only used to refer to men who are somehow sanctified.

The Septuagint uses similarly unusual wording "arsenos" means "male" (as opposed to "man" ["andros"]). "gunaikos" means "woman" [as in "gynacology"], but can idiomatically refer to "wife", as in "my woman".

The hebrew "tishkav" (the core being "ishkv") means "lie down", although this can also be used to mean "sex". "mishk'vei" (again having "ishk'v" as the core) means "(thing in which) laying down occurs" - "layings", ie. "bed".

It is important to note that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 the word that is used is shakab, which is popularly translated to mean to lay (lie) with but there is a problem with that translation. Shakab is used 52 times in the old testament and is always used to a sexual encounter typified by deceit or force, in other words, some type of rape.

"koite" means "marriage bed". The etymology behind this is a plural noun ("beds of"). The use of the plural where it would not be expected suggests an idiomatic expression (compare "to lay with" rather than to "lie with" in English: to lay or be laid is always a transitive verb and of archaic form; "to lie" is modern and can be intransitive.)

It is illustrative to look at another pairing of arseno and koitai in the Torah Gen 35:22. Here the topic cannot be construed to have anything to do with homosexuality. The passage refers to Reuben laying with his father Jacob’s concubine, specifically having a sexual tryst with a woman who belonged to his father.

This argument may seem strange to modern ears, but it should be remembered that Leviticus 18:22 was written in a context where polygamy was normal and sexual fidelity to one partner strange. In such a context, it could easily be argued that the only reason for condemning promiscuity and adultery was the risk involved of pregnancy in the absence of clear paternal liability. In such circumstances the father could disown his causal responsibility for the child and burden some other man with its upbringing.

So the septuagint is literally condemning adultery, specifically adultery where one of the participants is a sanctified man and that condemnation is limited to changing his status to one of ritual impurity. It is not making any generalized statement about homosexuality or even male to male sex. The only way it could be construed to mean male on male sex is if both men were sanctified or married to a woman in which case the sin would be adultery not homosexuality.

Who did you lift this argument from? In any event, your assertion is false. If homosexuality was not meant then there would not be a separate condemnation apart from adultery or fornication. Moreover, you do not know Hebrew or Greek, and an online lexicon (or someone's argument) does not give you vicarious credentials. So sorry.

 

[Brennin]

By the way, let's see how arsenokoitai is translated into Latin (at least as early as Tertullian.)


masculorum concubitores

concubitores = nominative plural; masculine noun of agency = bedders

masculorum = genetive plural of masculus = of men

This is yet another refutation of those who would misrepresent scripture to excuse the sin of homoeoricism.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

By the way, let's see how arsenokoitai is translated into Latin (at least as early as Tertullian.)


masculorum concubitores

concubitores = nominative plural; masculine noun of agency = bedders

masculorum = genetive plural of masculus = of men

This is yet another refutation of those who would misrepresent scripture to excuse the sin of homoeoricism.

so it could be refering to people who bed multiple men?

Nothing about committed, monogomous relationships though, huh?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Brenin Bump

So, let me get this straight... you want to deny people the chance for life long hapiness, stability and commitment, because of a potential 2.5% increase in spousal discounts at a golf club?

Further, if all the homosexual couples you are so concerned about getting spousal discounts, went out and ex-gay ministried and became heterosexuals, and got married to heterosexual partners... wouldn't they be candidates for the same discount?

I mean, the net number of marriages doesn't increase any, does it?

 

[Brennin]

so it could be refering to people who bed multiple men?

Nothing about committed, monogomous relationships though, huh?

It need not be multiple men.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

It need not be multiple men.

But thats what you just said it said... are you now trying to claim it pertains to people that Paul doesn't specify?

 

[Brennin]

But thats what you just said it said... are you now trying to claim it pertains to people that Paul doesn't specify?

This is not difficult. Arsenokoitai refers to men who bed one or more men.