There are many who would point to Jonathan and David as exactly that sort of covenant. I, myself, do not claim to know how physical their love was, but the only reason for rejecting even the possibilty is the a priori assumption that God's Word can't espouse their love.
Now I say that to make the point that you should let God's Word speak for itself. Deal with what the text says, and not what we assume to possibly be able to read into it.
Unless such a physical love is exampled elsewhere, why open the door for confusion? How many times does God show that His desired way is the union of man and wife? How many times does He have to show that fornication is sinful? How many times does He have to show that marriage is a covenant between Him a husband and a wife?
If you're going to read any such assumption into the story of David and Jonathon, you have to ignore what He says about the aforementioned.
I'm just saying that if the church or the state wrongly refuses to recognize a marriage covenant that does not, perforce, example God's plan.
Of course it doesn't. But where is your Biblical example that God's intent for marriage is anything other than what He says it is, and He says it is a man joined with a woman?
When, in the sixties, the state forbade interracial marriage -- and quoted the Bible to support the ban -- that state was in the wrong. I never said God's Word was wrong or that it had changed.
Clearly the state was wrong and there were clearly people of God back in the sixties who knew it was wrong and they fought to change it.
But changing man's laws does not change what God says. And God's view for marriage is clear.
That is unresponsive to my point. Your use of the word "committing" presupposes that any such act is sinful. If I accept your use of the word "committing" I am giving up any chance of explaining the truth.
See now you're just acting silly. If it is an ACT, why would I say anything other than committing? If it's an act, it's being committed. If you're not committing sexual acts with the same sex, then there is no act to call sinful. But once you commit the act...It's not rocket science.
You don't have to accept committing. But this is how you CONTINUE to twist a lie into your version of the truth.
If a person is committing sexual acts with a person of the same sex it IS SIN.
I do not claim that what you do with your wife is "committing" sinful heterosexual acts, and if I did and you accepted my phrasing, then you would not be able to properly defend yourself. The phrasing is akin to the classic question "When did you stop beating your wife?"
Again, you're continuing with this silliness and have become fixated on the word committing. What do you want me to say? Doing homosexual acts?
The acts are taking place and if a person is engaged in same sex acts, it is a SIN.
I'm not defending me, and that's where you as a Christian keep getting confused. You seem to think this is a tete-a-tete prove my point before you can prove yours discussion. And that's what you continue to do. That's what you have done in the number of threads where you've attempted to prove this LIE. Yes I said LIE because that's exactly what it is.
God has said it, and unless you and your theology are aligned with it, you are a false teacher.
First, I am not your "dear." Second I object to people who take terms of endearment and use them as cusswords. It cheapens them And don't bother to deny that instead of "dear" you wanted to call me "you *&%#$" There is no other reason to address me like that.
First, I don't swear. Never have. Second, it speaks to YOUR spirit that you read something into that which was not there.
I don't disagree with this as stated. Lots of people get married for the wrong reasons. But getting married for sinful reasons does not invalidate the marriage. And, more to the point, nothing you have said shows that a same-sex marriage is a wrong and sinful marriage just because it is same-sex.
12But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish. 2 Peter 2:12
But in response to the claim that I don't espouse what God's word says about sin:
Every homosexual act that God's word calls sin is sin. Every heterosexual act that God's word calls sin is sin. Every spiritual act that God's word calls sin is sin. Every natural act that God's word calls sin is sin. But that does not mean that every natural act is sin. That does not mean that every spiritual act is sin. That does not mean that every heterosexual act is sin And that does not mean that every homosexual act is sin.
