How should the Church recognise same-sex couples (or not)?

[SnowyMacie]

Clearly you didn't notice that:

1. It says homosexual sex is a sin in the Bible, not attraction, as detailed in the article linked above. To say otherwise is adding to the Bible
2. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was pride, assault, and inhospitality, not homosexual attraction. Sex, maybe, but not attraction. Again, to say so is adding to the Bible.

I'm not sure where he got the information, but in the essay I quoted, he mentions in the Sodom and Gomorrah part a disclaimer at the end saying "generally, serious traditionalist scholars don't use the Sodom story to make their arguments." Since I don't know where he's getting that claim from, I don't include it when I paraphrase it.

 

[RDKirk]

We see polygamy as wrong now, but in Biblical times it was seen as okay, plus King David had multiple wives and concubines. Things change.

Not really. Notice that nobody in the OT with multiple wives of his own choosing had a happy marriage.

God's intention for the permission of polygamy was "because your hearts were hard" and son-less widows would have no other means of support.

Jews had figured out by the first century from the evidence of scripture that polygamy was not God's best plan for a man and woman.

 

[RDKirk]

Many of God's rules upon the ancient Israelites were completely "arbitrary" as far as human logic was concerned. To a great extent, the only purpose of those laws was to create a distinction in His people from the rest of the world.

With respect to this, they think it strange of you not running with them into the same overflow of debauchery, speaking evil of you. -- 1 Peter 4

So be it.

 

[Edmond Smith]

the rule about procreation only applies to the people you want it apply to meaning that procreation has nothing to do with it

Again, your understanding of the truth is in question.

It's not my rule. It's God's.

And it is basic biology.

two men cannot have children, physically, without a surrogate. So therefore they cannot multiply.
two women cannot have children, without a surrogate. So they cannot multiply.

God told Adam and Eve to multiply.

Even if a man and woman cannot have a child, by normal means, doesn't mean that they cannot have a child by the advancements of today's science.

Your a perfect example of the miracle of Child birth. That God gave to us, to multiply upon this earth. For His Glory. Your mom and dad, were blessed with you. He even stitched you together while in your mothers womb.

Procreation is the only way to multiply, thru normal human means. It's God given and blessed by Him. So that we are wonderfully and fearfully made.

This cannot happen with same sex marriage. So they cannot be in the will of God.

Maybe you don't understand the will of God.

There is God's sovereign will, which is over everything. and then there is the will of His command.
It is a command for man and woman to populate. But at the same time there are those who cannot have a child, so what do they do. They stay in God's will trying to have a child. God is in control and He will allow that to happen if it is His will. Like He did with Abraham and Sarah.

He also has His permissive will. this is the will that allows things to happen. All things that God allows is for our good. We are to do the changing. Not Him.

 

[Edmond Smith]

That is good because you didn't impress. Maybe if you would have answered my question....

Because you didn't like the answer. Doesn't mean it wasn't answered. Because it was.

 

[CrystalDragon]

Not really. Notice that nobody in the OT with multiple wives of his own choosing had a happy marriage.

God's intention for the permission of polygamy was "because your hearts were hard" and son-less widows would have no other means of support.

Jews had figured out by the first century from the evidence of scripture that polygamy was not God's best plan for a man and woman.

Though couldn't God have easily un-hardened their hearts? He did the opposite for Pharaoh. Or better yet, he could have had them born with the developing brain connections to not have that inclination to begin with, like a majority of people today.

 

[RDKirk]

Though couldn't God have easily un-hardened their hearts? He did the opposite for Pharaoh. Or better yet, he could have had them born with the developing brain connections to not have that inclination to begin with, like a majority of people today.

So you're going to the "why didn't God just make everyone good?" debate? That's a different thread.

 

[CrystalDragon]

So you're going to the "why didn't God just make everyone good?" debate?

Not necessarily, but since God has a divine plan where everything goes according to his will (if it didn't the plan might be thrown off), then because he's all-powerful he can direct everything with no restraints to his will. At times something negative happens, we get upset, and we express how if we had the power to change the outcome we would have done so. We can't do so because we are finite creatures. God is supposedly not so there's absolutely nothing stopping him from having things turn out how he wants (and if God has a divine plan, then everything must be going according to that plan).

 

[A New Dawn]

So are you saying we should go back to saying polygamy and concubines are okay things?

There is a difference between God acknowledging that a tradition (such as polygamy) exists for the purpose of providing for widows and orphans and condoning it. God NEVER condones polygamy. And acknowledging that a tradition exists but not condoning it is a far cry from calling it an abomination. God never changed his mind about polygamy (saying it was OK to saying it wasn't OK since He never condoned it), so why would he change his mind about homosexuality?

 

[infinity25]

Why on God's beautiful creation would I accept something that the Lord cured me of (bi sexual sins)?? It's a part of my testimony, and He also saved me from drugs and alcohol. THANK YOU JESUS.

Don't get me wrong, Im not condemning anyone....but God does NOT approve of that sin. I would know, I've been there.

God bless you brother goes to show you no matter how big our problems are he still loves us and will help us.

 

[SnowyMacie]

There is a difference between God acknowledging that a tradition (such as polygamy) exists for the purpose of providing for widows and orphans and condoning it. God NEVER condones polygamy. And acknowledging that a tradition exists but not condoning it is a far cry from calling it an abomination. God never changed his mind about polygamy (saying it was OK to saying it wasn't OK since He never condoned it), so why would he change his mind about homosexuality?

Perhaps he never did change his mind about certain forms of homosexuality and we have been misunderstanding him, the concept of same-sex marriage would have been entirely foreign to the authors and audience of scripture. There was no concept of loving, monogmous, committed homosexual relationships during that time period, in fact, the entire concept of sexual orientation is a relatively new phenomenon.

 

[A New Dawn]

Perhaps he never did change his mind about certain forms of homosexuality and we have been misunderstanding him, the concept of same-sex marriage would have been entirely foreign to the authors and audience of scripture. There was no concept of loving, monogmous, committed homosexual relationships during that time period, in fact, the entire concept of sexual orientation is a relatively new phenomenon.

This is a common statement, but where is the justification for it? How do you know that there was no concept of "loving, monogmous, committed homosexual relationships during that time period"? This is nothing but your opinion.

 

[RDKirk]

Not necessarily, but since God has a divine plan where everything goes according to his will (if it didn't the plan might be thrown off), then because he's all-powerful he can direct everything with no restraints to his will. At times something negative happens, we get upset, and we express how if we had the power to change the outcome we would have done so. We can't do so because we are finite creatures. God is supposedly not so there's absolutely nothing stopping him from having things turn out how he wants (and if God has a divine plan, then everything must be going according to that plan).

If God does not have a plan and cannot guarantee His plan, He can't be depended upon, particularly not with anyone's life.

 

[RDKirk]

Perhaps he never did change his mind about certain forms of homosexuality and we have been misunderstanding him, the concept of same-sex marriage would have been entirely foreign to the authors and audience of scripture. There was no concept of loving, monogmous, committed homosexual relationships during that time period, in fact, the entire concept of sexual orientation is a relatively new phenomenon.

Unless we presume that homosexuality is a purely modern phenomenon--and we know it isn't, because there certainly is ancient documentation of it--then we can't say "the concept of same-sex marriage would have been entirely foreign to the authors and audience of scripture." It wasn't unknown to the New Testament writers because it was an issue in Rome, and even the pagan Romans were opposed to it.

 

[SnowyMacie]

This is a common statement, but where is the justification for it? How do you know that there was no concept of "loving, monogmous, committed homosexual relationships during that time period"? This is nothing but your opinion.

There is no evidence of that occuring. The homosexuality that existed in that time was either idol worship, or was in-between a man and an adolescent or a man and slave.

Unless we presume that homosexuality is a purely modern phenomenon--and we know it isn't, because there certainly is ancient documentation of it--then we can't say "the concept of same-sex marriage would have been entirely foreign to the authors and audience of scripture." It wasn't unknown to the New Testament writers because it was an issue in Rome, and even the pagan Romans were opposed to it.

Sex between males of equal status was discouraged, but sex between men and males of lesser status was widely accepted and practice. Roman sexuality was very dichotomous, patriarchal, and status oriented, it was not seen as a loss of social status to have sex with a male of a lesser status (as long as they took on the dominant role). Sex between men of the same status was forbidden because it was seen as encroaching on another man's integrity.

 

[A New Dawn]

There is no evidence of that occuring. The homosexuality that existed in that time was either idol worship, or was in-between a man and an adolescent or a man and slave.

I suggest you read some historical documents from the time surrounding Christ. Gay marriage and homosexuality were part of moral landscape in Ancient Rome and History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia

 

[SnowyMacie]

I suggest you read some historical documents from the time surrounding Christ. Gay marriage and homosexuality were part of moral landscape in Ancient Rome and History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia

Regardless of the fact that your first source is incredibly biased, neither source actually contradicts anything that I have just said.

 

[A New Dawn]

Regardless of the fact that your first source is incredibly biased, neither source actually contradicts anything that I have just said.

You stated

the concept of same-sex marriage would have been entirely foreign to the authors and audience of scripture. There was no concept of loving, monogmous, committed homosexual relationships during that time period

What I posted completely negated that idea.

 

[RDKirk]

Sex between males of equal status was discouraged, but sex between men and males of lesser status was widely accepted and practice. Roman sexuality was very dichotomous, patriarchal, and status oriented, it was not seen as a loss of social status to have sex with a male of a lesser status (as long as they took on the dominant role). Sex between men of the same status was forbidden because it was seen as encroaching on another man's integrity.

We are talking about homosexual "marriage," not just homosexuality. Nero--who was a contemporary of Paul, remember--is said by historians to have married two different males, as the husband of one and the wife of another--and the scandal was a factor in his eventual demise.

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

You stated
What I posted completely negated that idea.

The institutions of same-sex marriage, civil unions or registered partnerships, and unregistered partnerships did not exist in the societal context of any of the scriptures. While there are a few reports that ceremonies were held here or there, most scholars do not believe they were common. They also did not have an institutional or legal recognition. The contexts are totally different.