brody196 wrote:You mention in the above that you and others who share similar views on this subject are "taking the scriptures seriously", then why, may I ask is it that those on your side always resort to arguments that undermine scriptural authority? We have in scripture a unified agreement between both testaments that homosexual practice is sin, of which there was never a question until recent years.
It has been dismissed in a previous post, but a lot of what I say originates from Walt Wink's article here.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarti ... title=1265
He believes that some verses that have been traditionally attributed to a condemnation of homosexuality refer to homosexual rape, prostitution and fertility rites.
We may begin by excluding all references to Sodom in the Old and New Testaments, since the sin of the Sodomites was homosexual rape, carried out by heterosexuals intent on humiliating strangers by treating them “like women,” thus demasculinizing them. (This is also the case in a similar account in Judges 19-21.) Their brutal gang-rape has nothing to do with the problem of whether genuine love expressed between consenting persons of the same sex is legitimate or not. Likewise Deuteronomy 23:17-18 must be pruned from the list, since it most likely refers to a heterosexual “stud” involved in Canaanite fertility rites that have infiltrated Jewish worship; the King James Version inaccurately labeled him a “sodomite.”
Several other texts are ambiguous. It is not clear whether I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10 refer to the “passive” and “active” partners in homosexual relationships, or to homosexual and heterosexual male prostitutes. In short, it is unclear whether the issue is homosexuality alone, or promiscuity and “sex-for-hire.”
However, he agrees that some texts are not ambiguous. Leviticus 18, 20, and Romans 1:26-27. The question is, if these verses are to be taken as authoritative, which of the following are we to also view as authoritative; levirate marriage, polygamy, celibacy, inter-racial marriage, stoning of adulterers, sex during menstruation, and fornication.
We could debate each of these; the bottom line though, is that the progressive on homosexuality is being serious about the Bible. We disagree, but it doesn't mean that we aren't being serious.
So, I am back to my original hermeneutical principles regarding sexuality:
1). Love, rather than lust
2). Covenant versus promiscuity.
3). Consent rather than violence.
This addresses Romans because it is talking about lust, and not love, and is promiscuous; outside of covenant. Also, as much as it pains y'all, the ancient understanding of natural simply does not match ours. Geocentricity is one example. But also, it doesn't take much searching to discover all sorts of strange sexual practices in nature.
Also, it addresses the slippery slope argument that if we are going to let gays marry, then where does it end? Bestiality is forbidden because while you might love your ewe, it cannot consent, and can't make a covenant. Likewise pedophelia; consent is not possible. Homosexual promiscuity is as forbidden as heterosexual.
Each of these can be debated point by point. The bottom line for me though is: I am not taking scripture lightly. In the flesh, I would love to be able to sleep around and look at porn. And yet, I take scripture seriously about lust and promiscuity. We just disagree with what taking the scripture seriously looks like in specific passages.
