Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

[morbo3000]

Here is how I deal with the two texts from Paul.

When I approach these texts, the most important factor is discriminating between selfishness and love. Marriage, whether heterosexual or gay is based on love, covenant and consent, not sexual acts. "Dishonorable passions," and "lusts of their hearts to impurity," are being confused with gay marriage because selfish sexual acts are being confused with love.

In Corinthians and Romans, the sins Paul is addressing are acts of selfishness, committed by selfish individuals against others. There is no mutual consent in theft. Killing is an act of violence. Coveting and envy are the consequence of selfishness and lust. The same is true of the sinful sexual behaviors. Lust (promiscuity), betrayal (adultery), breaking of covenant (divorce), or violence (rape, incest, pedophilia) are all acts of selfishness. The homosexual acts listed are sins because like the other behaviors they share in the list, they are non-relational, being committed by selfish individuals; they are just as wrong for heterosexuals as gays.

By contrast, the foundation of gay *marriage* is love, covenant/committment and mutual consent, not sex. As such, it is not the same as what Paul described in those verses. The foundation of my (heterosexual) marriage is love. It is only secondarily sex. I don't love my wife because I have sex with her. I have sex with her because I love her and have a covenant relationship with her. If I married her for sex, then I would be justified to divorce her if the sex wasn't good. I could then be free to find a new wife who I lusted after. My sexuality would be based on selfishness, not love, and be just as sinful as any other acts in the lists in Corinthians and Romans.

I want to finish with one thing.

Romans 1: 21 says For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

I know monogamous gay Christians. They honor God and give thanks to him. Their thinking is not futile nor their hearts darkened. They are not idolaters. They love God. The sins in that list are committed by people who have turned their back on God. These are not those people. Promiscuous gay people are just as rebellious as promiscuous heterosexuals. But those that love each other are not.

[Paidion]

Paidon.. I've been trying to hunt down an external greek definition of porneia, believing that it's definition as fornication was an english usage. Can you source this? Thanks!

I'm not sure what you mean by "an external greek definition of porneia." External to what? Do you mean a non-Biblical definition? Are you looking for lexical definitions? I think I can provide that. Or are you looking for instances in which the word was used external to the Bible, such as in the Septuagint? I think I can post some instances of that.

In my opinion, the best way to find out the meaning of a Greek word is to look at instances of it both within and without the Bible.

Lexical definitions seem more or less biased.

[morbo3000]

...looking for instances in which the word was used external to the Bible, such as in the Septuagint? I think I can post some instances of that.

In my opinion, the best way to find out the meaning of a Greek word is to look at instances of it both within and without the Bible.

Lexical definitions seem more or less biased.

Instances within and without the Bible. I agree about lexical definitions.

Thanks!

[Homer]

By contrast, the foundation of gay *marriage* is love, covenant/committment and mutual consent, not sex. As such, it is not the same as what Paul described in those verses.

What are the implications of this kind of thinking regarding bestiality? Does it depend on how the person feels about the animal? Could bestiality be OK under certain conditions?

[morbo3000]

Good question homer.

Following my 3 criteria, beasts...

Can't love
Can't enter into a covenant.
Can't consent.

Same is true of children.

I understand the concern that this is a slippery slope. But it doesn't have to be.

[Homer]

Morbo wrote:

Following my 3 criteria, beasts...

Can't love
Can't enter into a covenant.
Can't consent.

But in regard to people:

Let's say two couples in their 60's are neighbors. In couple A the man is impotent and although he loves his wife, he wants her to be happy. In family B next door the wife has lost all interest in sex, finds it painful, and wants her husband to be happy. Wife A and husband B become fond of one another, and think they are in love although each still believes they are in love with their spouses. Wife A and husband B become aware of their mutual desire for sexual fulfillment. They discuss this with their own spouses and all parties agree that wife A and husband B may enter into a sexual relationship. Wife A and husband B enter into an exclusive sexual relationship with the approval of their spouses, and promise they will have sex with no other person. Both couples also affirm their commitment to stay in their marriage.

How would this arrangement not meet your three criteria?

But enough of that argument; I think you are off on a goat trail. In Romans 1:18-32 Paul assigns a particular reason regarding why homosexual acts are wrong. They are unnatural, just as beastiality is unnatural. The male and female bodies were designed to complement one another.

[morbo3000]

In Romans 1:18-32 Paul assigns a particular reason regarding why homosexual acts are wrong. They are unnatural, just as beastiality is unnatural. The male and female bodies were designed to complement one another.

And speaking of goat trails, you should read what goats and sheep do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sex ... iour#Sheep

Nature seems to have some pretty peculiar sex behaviors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual ... in_animals

You could maybe argue that this behavior is attributed to the fall, though that'd be kind of circular since Paul is arguing from that very nature.

But this misses what I consider the most important part that is hardly addressed in the discussion. Monogamous gay people seeking marriage do so out of love, not lust. They are making a covenant with someone, not looking for a license for promiscuity. The Christian argument against marriage always focuses on the sexual aspect. But sex is not the reason for my marriage. Love is.

And while in church today I realized I forgot an important factor in my three criteria: Seeking God. To others, it would seem obvious that if a gay couple were to seek God's will in their marriage, He would be against it. However, perhaps that is something that is missed in the whole argument. By assuming that gay people are rebellious, we don't call them to seek God. Do we trust God in their lives? Or do we chalk them up as incorrigible?

Take sex off the table.. how do you feel about gay love?

[morbo3000]

You're using the word "Christian" in an unbiblical manner. There aren't any practicing "gay" Christians, any more than there are practicing adulterous Christians. The bible uses the word "Christian" to speak of disciples(Acts 11:26). A "Christian" disciple follows the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles, who taught that homosexuality is a sin that needs to be repented of.

It's safe to say that soteriology and sanctification are arguable topics with conscientious "Christians" on both sides. I respect your opinion, but I disagree with it.

I thank God that he did not, and has not given up on me as a great sinner.

[Homer]

And a door will be opened that can't be shut:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... tid=pm_pop

[morbo3000]

Wow. Slippery slop indeed.

Thanks for sharing Homer.