Biblical support for gay sex? A simple question

[brightmorningstar]

To KCKID,

Well firstly just to address one of you points,

Appealing to ancient texts from a totally foreign culture to ours that are often based on superstition, ignorance, and fear is foolhardy.

Well that’s the Bible for you and of course that’s the disbelief we often refer to. But of you believe the Bible is such how could you follow Jesus Christ’s teaching?

But on top of that…

Well, it's already been generally acknowledged that there is no biblical support for 'gay' sex as such. So, that's the answer.

Then in what are gay Christians following Christ? If there is no teaching on it even if they don’t believe the condemnations, they aren’t following Jesus Christ’s teaching which is faithful man/woman marriage or celibacy.

 

[OllieFranz]

To Olliefranz,

No! On the contrary. About a dozen passages have been given which the Christian churches believe exclude and condemn same sex activity and union, or ‘gay sex’. That you and some others don’t believe they do is not the subject of this thread. So there is no logical fallacy as argument from silence from us. There is therefore a logical fallacy from your position.

First you say no, to the contrary, and then you confirm the assuption. An assumption is defined as something not yet stated, not as something proven untrue, so your protest makes no sense. AS I stated, the question in the OP only makes means something if there is the [as yet unstated] condition that either the Bible condemns "gay sex" or supports hetero-sex. Since your whole post argues that condition, you must agree.

You are trying to pin the problem with your argument on those who don’t have that problem.

No, I'm calling you out on your false claims of "off-topic" Otherwise I have no problems.

The passages which support hetero-sex have been given here and on many threads,.

I agree, up to a point. Earlier in the thread, in discussion with the Original Poster, it was established that passages supporting "sex acts" did not need to graphically portray sex (All examples in the Bible that include graphic descriptions of sex are describing sexual sins. Passages that support "sex acts" in marriage simply accept that sex happens and that in marriage it is not sinful.) By that standard, the relationship between Jonathan and David, if it was a marriage, and if it was sexually consummated would be an example of the Bible supporting "gay sex acts."

However I can't claim that either of the two conditions are known to be true, so while I often defend other's use of that example, I do not claim it as certainty.


On the other hand, no verse that supports sex within a marriage defines marriage, or who may or may not enter into it. So, unless it can be shown that they specifically exclude them, they also support "gay sex acts" within the context of a committed, covenanted marriage.

again, the dialogue is open to you to provide scripture to support gay sex and argue it in debate.

Which is exactly what I did during my discussion with the Original Poster at the beginning of this thread

Once again you are trying to pin the problem with your argument on those who have that problem

????

Well I guess it could be seen as gay-baiting as there is no Biblical support for gay sex and this thread is designed to establish that, as it is doing.

No, establishing or failing to establish that there are no passages that support are not gay-bating. But dismissing any posts that present passages that support it, or that point out the underlying assumptions and thus point out that even if it is established that there are no supporting passages, no argument is advanced as off-topic is to make a claim that turns this thread into nothing more than gay-baiting.

What it is also showing is the unwillingness of those who support gay sex and unions to debate the issue.

Who is the one turning from the debate, trying to dismiss the other side as "off-topic"? Not EPII, Not me, not even Brennin or Tackleberry, who are otherwise on your side.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Olliefranz,
Thanks for your reply in this lengthy debate my friend.

First you say no, to the contrary, and then you confirm the assuption. An assumption is defined as something not yet stated, not as something proven untrue, so your protest makes no sense. AS I stated, the question in the OP only makes means something if there is the [as yet unstated] condition that either the Bible condemns "gay sex" or supports hetero-sex. Since your whole post argues that condition, you must agree.

But that makes no sense in esponse to my argument, still about a dozen passages have been given which the Christian churches believe exclude and condemn same sex activity and union, or ‘gay sex’. That you and some others don’t believe they do is not the subject of this thread. So there is no logical fallacy as argument from silence from us. There is therefore a logical fallacy from your position.

You are trying to pin the problem with your argument on those who don’t have that problem.

No you are as I have no intention of pinning anything on anyone, I am referring to God’s word in the Bible, if some see themselves as subjected to it that’s their choice.

I agree, up to a point. Earlier in the thread, in discussion with the Original Poster, it was established that passages supporting "sex acts" did not need to graphically portray sex (All examples in the Bible that include graphic descriptions of sex are describing sexual sins. Passages that support "sex acts" in marriage simply accept that sex happens and that in marriage it is not sinful.) By that standard, the relationship between Jonathan and David, if it was a marriage, and if it was sexually consummated would be an example of the Bible supporting "gay sex acts."

Apart from being a smokescreen that’s also illogical. Its illogical because if your exception is marriage then you need to find a marriage to apply, the friendship of David and Jonathan wasn’t marriage. It’s a smokescreen because my comment affirmed the direct condemnation of same sex acts which you haven’t addressed.

On the other hand, no verse that supports sex within a marriage defines marriage, or who may or may not enter into it.

The verses already given do that, the thread is not about your disputing these verse but verses that support gay sex that you can provide

So, unless it can be shown that they specifically exclude them, they also support "gay sex acts" within the context of a committed, covenanted marriage.

Again verses have been given to that show gay sex acts are condemned and that show there is no such concept as a committed covenanted marriage of two people of the same-sex. What is being asked is verses to support gay sex.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Again verses have been given to that show gay sex acts are condemned and that show there is no such concept as a committed covenanted marriage of two people of the same-sex. What is being asked is verses to support gay sex.

I personally have submitted several such verses on several occasions. I'm sure others have as well. Do you suffer selective amnesia, or what?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII,
Yes you have and thanks for that. We are in the process of examining them.

The only thing I can see might support the idea that the centurion was having any sexual relations with his servant was that he says he didnt deserve to have Jesus come under his roof. But the logic of the whole assumption opens up all kinds of possibilities to what Jesus might have been countenancing indirectly that we also know He condemed elsewhere.

One of the key points about the account of the centurion is authority. He points out that he has authority over others but he himself is under authority. He also recognises that Jesus has authority given (ie Matt 28 all authority in heaven and earth)
So it is a good question why some in particular churches dont respect the authority of their own church's view on the subject of homosexual practice.

 

[Inviolable]

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

Your idea of prejudice and discrimination are laughable. You gay? Just a question. You seem to take the homosexual thing way to personal.
Calling every person who questions the normality of homosexuality prejudice.
Whats wrong with being abnormal? Do you have a prejudice against people who aren't homosexual and don't enjoy having a penis in their mouth?

 

[OllieFranz]

TMI!! Why is it that it is always the anti-gays who get graphic with details that we do not need to hear and which are not appropriate on a family website?

 

[Inviolable]

TMI!! Why is it that it is always the anti-gays who get graphic with details that we do not need to hear and which are not appropriate on a family website?

Well, one man having another mans penis in his mouth is a homosexual act. I'm glad you spoke up. Someone who isn't anti gay can appreciate that a description of the act itself is TMI and not for a family forum.

Funny how you're not being called prejudice right now.

 

[Andreusz]

Well, one man having another mans penis in his mouth is a homosexual act. I'm glad you spoke up. Someone who isn't anti gay can appreciate that a description of the act itself is TMI and not for a family forum.

Funny how you're not being called prejudice right now.

Um, you're the one who brought up the graphic details.

To answer your earlier comment, no, I don't think homosexuality is normal, in the sense that most people are not homosexual. But it is normal for some people to feel homosexual attraction. The phrasing of your comment suggests that you don't like the idea of homosexual sex (I apologise if I'm reading you wrong ... if this doesn't apply to you, it does apply to a lot of straight people, like Linda Harvey). In that case, don't think about it.
However, please accept that we do exist, and whether you like it or not, we fall in love with each other, and would like to be legally permitted to marry the loves of our lives, just as you are.
Thank you.

 

[Inviolable]

Um, you're the one who brought up the graphic details.

To answer your earlier comment, no, I don't think homosexuality is normal, in the sense that most people are not homosexual. But it is normal for some people to feel homosexual attraction. The phrasing of your comment suggests that you don't like the idea of homosexual sex (I apologise if I'm reading you wrong ... if this doesn't apply to you, it does apply to a lot of straight people, like Linda Harvey). In that case, don't think about it.
However, please accept that we do exist, and whether you like it or not, we fall in love with each other, and would like to be legally permitted to marry the loves of our lives, just as you are.
Thank you.

Well, yes... You got an odd posting style and I like that!
I could care less if you exist or not or if you fall in love or not. Just pointing out that you're not normal and shouldn't be treated as such.
Doesn't mean I'm trying to put up gay slave camps or force gays to wear armbands. I'm not prejudice, I don't hate homosexuals so I don't see where my opinion shouldn't count for something just because someone wants to label me as prejudice.
It's not about hating someone for who they are. I just think homosexual sex isn't normal. It's completely abnormal. So whats wrong with being abnormal?
Just don't hide the fact that you're abnormal in an effort to try and make me think I'm wrong so you can go out and change the world how you want it to be.

 

[OllieFranz]

To Olliefranz,
Thanks for your reply in this lengthy debate my friend.

But that makes no sense in esponse to my argument, still about a dozen passages have been given which the Christian churches believe exclude and condemn same sex activity and union, or ‘gay sex’. That you and some others don’t believe they do is not the subject of this thread. So there is no logical fallacy as argument from silence from us. There is therefore a logical fallacy from your position.

Sometimes when I see a response like this, with non-sequiters and rants, I wonder if you actually read my posts, or just pick up on one or two words in each paragraph and then start disageeing without even knowing what you are disagreeing with.

No you are as I have no intention of pinning anything on anyone, I am referring to God’s word in the Bible, if some see themselves as subjected to it that’s their choice.

Well I guess now I know the answer to the riddle I just posed. You do just argue to disagree. Somehow you managed to quote a part of your previous post to which I responded, and not my response to that quote. And here you are arguing against your own words!!!

Apart from being a smokescreen that’s also illogical. Its illogical because if your exception is marriage then you need to find a marriage to apply, the friendship of David and Jonathan wasn’t marriage. It’s a smokescreen because my comment affirmed the direct condemnation of same sex acts which you haven’t addressed.

I have addressed the passages, time and again, including earlier in this thread. Yes, the Bible does denounce sinful "gay sex acts," just as it denounces sinful hetero sex acts. In fact, every time the Bible actually describes a sex act, it describes a sinful one. Supported sex is not described, only implied. Nowhere does the Bible describe what happens between two spouses behind the closed tent flap. Instead it uses discrete phrases such as "So-and-so knew his wife."

As to Jonathan and David, I am honest enough to admit that, from the Biblical record, we can not be 100% certain that they considered their committed, covenanted, loving relationship to be a marriage. Nor can we be sure whether or not they ever sexually consumated their relationship.

It is time for you to be honest now, and admit that there is nothing in the description of their relationship that precludes it being a marriage or from having been consumated, other than that Jonathan and David were both males and you believe that God forbids same-sex marriage and extra-marital sex. So you approach the story already convinced that J&D would never even consider marriage or sex.

The verses already given do that, the thread is not about your disputing these verse but verses that support gay sex that you can provide
Again verses have been given to that show gay sex acts are condemned and that show there is no such concept as a committed covenanted marriage of two people of the same-sex. What is being asked is verses to support gay sex.

Once again, the verses which have been given show that certain "gay sex acts" are sin, just as certain hetero sex acts are sin. Is all hetero sex sinful because rape is sinful? Is all hetero sex sinful because promiscuity is sinful? Does the existence of pagan fertility rites mean that all hetero sex is sinful, or does it mean that idolatry is sinful?

The Bible clearly implies that men of God have had sex with their spouses without sinning. Paul even goes as far as to offer marriage as an alternative to "burning."

But nowhere does the Bible define marriage, or who may or may not covenant it. Both of Laban's daughters, for example, were legitimately married to Jacob, even though the marriage to Leah was a fraudulent bait-and-switch on Laban's part, and the marriage to Rachel was both bigamous and in violation of Leviticus 18:17-18 and Leviticus 20:14. Both marriages were blessed in their offspring. Leah's son Judah produced the line of David, kings of Israel and Judah and ancestors of Jesus. Rachel's son Joseph brought his father's people out of the famine and thus was used of God to preserve His chosen race.

 

[KCKID]

Nowhere does the Bible describe what happens between two spouses behind the closed tent flap.

 

[alexross8]

Homosexuality is a tough one.
There are in fact 2 or more anti-homosexual verses within the bible .
People say its natural because animals do it, But thats what the bible is for.
we are not to act like animals , because thats what gets us to commit adultery and other sins.
I am sure God can forgive homosexuals for loving other homosexuals , because love is not frowned upon.

Now , the act of Homosexual intercourse is a tougher one.
People say homosexual sex has no purpose .
Donate sperm to a sperm bank , and then you would have served the purpose that people say homosexuals dont serve.

But be aware that one less straight man means One more lonely Lady.

God made Eve for Adam .
Adam is man
Eve is woman , because she has a womb (spelled correctly?).
those are literally the translations of their names.

God made Eve for Adam

God made Women for Men. (the meaning of eve's creation)

if a homosexual is concerned still , they should ask god for forgiveness if they need it.

But God's purpose for gay people is probably to teach straight people to be tolerant.
thats my personal view

 

[Andreusz]

But be aware that one less straight man means One more lonely Lady.

What if the 'lady' is gay too? And really, if a gay man marries a woman in order to 'overcome' his gayness, then two people are made miserable. I've seen this happen.

God made Eve for Adam .
Adam is man
Eve is woman , because she has a womb (spelled correctly?).
those are literally the translations of their names.
God made Women for Men. (the meaning of eve's creation)

'Woman' is derived from ANglo-Saxon 'wifman' which means 'woman-person'. It has nothing to do with 'womb'.

But God's purpose for gay people is probably to teach straight people to be tolerant.
thats my personal view

It would be nice if more people thought as you do. But judging by some of the posts on these threads, several people have a lot to learn ...

 

[darkshadow]

What if the 'lady' is gay too? And really, if a gay man marries a woman in order to 'overcome' his gayness, then two people are made miserable. I've seen this happen

.

Anytime marriage is done out of love it is wrong, whether it is to hide ones inner feeling, to be allowed to stay in a country, or not to have to testify in court, its wrong.


"'Woman' is derived from ANglo-Saxon 'wifman' which means 'woman-person'. It has nothing to do with 'womb'."

Main Entry:wom·anPronunciation: \ˈwu̇-mən, especially Southern ˈwō- or ˈwə-\ Function:noun Inflected Form(s):plural wom·en \ˈwi-mən\Etymology:Middle English, from Old English wīfman, from wīf woman, wife + man human being, manDate:before 12th century an adult female person

Your are right it has nothing to do with the womb. Its not "woman person" but "wife man", and wife being, "a female partner in a marriage".


"It would be nice if more people thought as you do. But judging by some of the posts on these threads, several people have a lot to learn ..."

Lets not mistake tolerance for beliefs and convictions. In the majority of the christian population they go by what the Bible teaches, that being that homosexuality, not being homosexual but acting on those urges, is a sin. The same as a heterosexual lusting after someone of the opposite sex.
It is funny how if someone's beliefs do not agree with society they are the ones who are not being tolerant, and in the case of the homosexuality they are "homophobic", yet if someone does not believe in a belief system they are courageous and the believer is a "right wing nut". I am not saying that that is happening here, I am saying this in general.
The Bible clearly states that the act of homosexuality is wrong in God's eyes, but we are to hate the sin but love the sinner.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Olliefranz,

Sometimes when I see a response like this, with non-sequiters and rants, I wonder if you actually read my posts, or just pick up on one or two words in each paragraph and then start disageeing without even knowing what you are disagreeing with.

Again your response is your opinion which bears no relation to the comments I made. I’ll try again. Over a dozen passages have been continuously cited and quoted show by what they say, that there is union of man and woman and celibacy and gay sex (same sex practice) is error.
This thread is about passages which countenance gay sex, not your disputing of those which exclude and condemn it.
So far we have three basic passages accounts cited ad quoted which we see as invalid on account of assumptions being made.

Well I guess now I know the answer to the riddle I just posed. You do just argue to disagree. Somehow you managed to quote a part of your previous post to which I responded, and not my response to that quote. And here you are arguing against your own words!!!

Sorry I repeat that I had no intention of pinning anything on anyone, I referred to God’s word in the Bible, if some see themselves as subjected to it that’s their choice.



Apart from being a smokescreen that’s also illogical. Its illogical because if your exception is marriage then you need to find a marriage to apply, the friendship of David and Jonathan wasn’t marriage. It’s a smokescreen because my comment affirmed the direct condemnation of same sex acts which you haven’t addressed.

I have addressed the passages, time and again,

Yes I know but I am pointing out its illogical because if your exception is marriage then you need to find a marriage to apply as the friendship of David and Jonathan wasn’t marriage. Its also a smokescreen because my comment affirmed the direct condemnation of same sex acts which you haven’t addressed. So could you address my comments rather than giving your opinion about my motives in making them?

including earlier in this thread. Yes, the Bible does denounce sinful "gay sex acts," just as it denounces sinful hetero sex acts.

It doesn’t denounce sex acts where a man and his wife have sex and procreate, so I don’t think you can say heterosex acts as it doesn’t quite describe the fact.

As to Jonathan and David, I am honest enough to admit that, from the Biblical record, we can not be 100% certain that they considered their committed, covenanted, loving relationship to be a marriage.

That’s assumption again, but I couldn’t assume that as David married women and marriage was understood by the people as man and woman, if one considers what you have considered one has already started to consider something the Bible already says isn’t.

It is time for you to be honest now, and admit that there is nothing in the description of their relationship that precludes it being a marriage or from having been consumated, other than that Jonathan and David were both males and you believe that God forbids same-sex marriage and extra-marital sex. So you approach the story already convinced that J&D would never even consider marriage or sex.

There is everything that rules out marriage. I am convinced marriage is man and woman when I read the account of David and Jonathan, and that they knew that, because I believe Genesis 2, 4 19, Leviticus 18 & 20 etc. You don’t believe these so you have already adopted a false approach before you read about David and Jonathan

Again verses have been given to that show gay sex acts are condemned and that show there is no such concept as a committed covenanted marriage of two people of the same-sex.

Again you are referring to what the Bible doesn’t say, which means Jesus just as probably taught that there is no such thing as a marriage of two men under any circumstances. How can you be sure He didn’t teach that?
You need to come up with some Biblical countenance of two men in a covenanted committed relationship being marriage. At present you are trying to justify your assumption with another of your assumptions.

The Bible clearly implies that men of God have had sex with their spouses without sinning. Paul even goes as far as to offer marriage as an alternative to "burning."

Yes but this is because of sexual immorality. 1 Corinthians 7 then describes marriage as man and woman

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Darkshadow,
You make some important observations. In a democracy where all are entitled to free speech and their views it is strange that one group think they are tolerant and others aren't, when in fact if they were tolerant they wouldn't make the statements of prejudice and bigotry. Seems to me to be the height of hypocracy and arogance.

 

[Andreusz]

"'Woman' is derived from ANglo-Saxon 'wifman' which means 'woman-person'. It has nothing to do with 'womb'."

Main Entry:wom·anPronunciation: \ˈwu̇-mən, especially Southern ˈwō- or ˈwə-\ Function:noun Inflected Form(s):plural wom·en \ˈwi-mən\Etymology:Middle English, from Old English wīfman, from wīf woman, wife + man human being, manDate:before 12th century an adult female person

Your are right it has nothing to do with the womb. Its not "woman person" but "wife man", and wife being, "a female partner in a marriage".

The very dictionary entry you quote shows that I am right, it meant 'woman person'. Anglo-Saxon 'wif' meant 'woman'. The meaning 'wife' was secondary.

The Bible clearly states that the act of homosexuality is wrong in God's eyes....

What doesn't he like about it?

 

[KCKID]

What doesn't he like about it?

Will someone answer this question . . .PLEASE?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Will someone answer this question . . .PLEASE?

Its wrong because the Bible SEZ!

Why does the Bible say it?

Because its wrong!