Episcopalian ‘Bishop’ Refuses to Recant ‘Gay Marriage’ Stance Despite Anglican Communion Sanctions

Curry-compressed
Photo Credit: Beth Crow, Youth Missioner for the Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina

WASHINGTON — The presiding bishop of the U.S. Episcopalian “Church” is refusing to recant the apostate denomination’s support for “gay marriage” despite the sanctions placed on its fellowship with the Anglican Communion.

“They heard from me directly that that’s not something that we’re considering,” Michael Curry told reporters. “They basically understand we made our decision, and this is who we are, and we’re committed to being a house of prayer for all.”

He made similar remarks to the Episcopal News Service.

“Our commitment to be an inclusive church is not based on a social theory or capitulation to the ways of the culture, but on our belief that the outstretched arms of Jesus on the cross are a sign of the very love of God reaching out to us all,” Curry said.

“While I understand that many disagree with us, our decision regarding marriage is based on the belief that the words of the Apostle Paul to the Galatians are true for the church today: All who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female, for all are one in Christ,” he stated.

Jim Naughton, former canon for the Archdiocese of Washington, likewise refused denominational repentance and asserted that homosexuality doesn’t violate the Law of God.

“We can accept these actions with grace and humility, but the Episcopal Church is not going back,” he told the Religion News Service. “We can’t repent what is not sin.”

  • Connect with Christian News

In 2003, Episcopalians appointed their first openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson, and last year, the group voted to allow weddings between those of the same gender in their houses of worship, as well as to eliminate the terms “husband and wife” from the denominational rules on marriage. The developments caused friction within the fellowship, which is historically descended from the missional Church of England.

As previously reported, as a result, for the next three years, Episcopalians will be banned from making policy decisions in the 85-million member Anglican Communion as a task force will be formed to work to restore the relationship.

“Recent developments in the Episcopal Church with respect to a change in their Canon on marriage represent a fundamental departure from the faith and teaching held by the majority of our Provinces on the doctrine of marriage,” Anglican leaders part of “Primates 2016” wrote in a statement. “All of us acknowledge that these developments have caused further deep pain throughout our Communion.”

“It is our unanimous desire to walk together,” they outlined. “However, given the seriousness of these matters, we formally acknowledge this distance by requiring that for a period of three years the Episcopal Church no longer represent us on ecumenical and interfaith bodies, should not be appointed or elected to an internal standing committee and that while participating in the internal bodies of the Anglican Communion, they will not take part in decision making on any issues pertaining to doctrine or polity.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Valri

    Holy mackerel.

    I got used to this site’s stories putting quotation marks around everything it disapproves of – gay “marriage”, the Roman Catholic “pope”, etc. – but now the Episcopalians aren’t even a church anymore, they’re a “church”?

  • Ruth Davis

    Just like the news clip says their house , not GOD’S house . That’s a shame the BIBLE speaks against homosexality, then they misinterpreted what the Apostle Paul’s was saying to the church . This is way no man can make America great again . The espiscalpians has turned GOD’S word into a lie . They will pay , because the BIBLE says so .

    • Josey

      Jesus is coming back soon to collect His beautiful bride, I hear the wedding bells clearly, they can have this old world but give me Jesus, soon He’ll make the a new earth w/out sin, those that choose that lifestyle will be cast out, so sad because all have a choice.

      Joshua 24:15 “And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”

    • Dave Fleer

      How can the Bible speak against homosexuality? The very term didn’t exist prior to the 19th century. Go back and re-read what Jesus said about eunuchs, it’s probably the closest description that could be made back when Scripture was written.

      • JonahFulmer

        “And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the women, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” – Rom 1:27

        Yeah, the bible doesn’t say anything about homosexuality at all……maybe you should go back and re-read what the bible says in Romans 1:27. They may not have had the term “homosexual”, but they where quite familiar with the sinful act of homosexuality. They just described it using a different language other than the English language.

        • Dave Fleer

          Romans 1 is a setup, getting his Jewish audience to agree with him. He drops the hammer in Romans 2 and beyond, accusing them of being judgmental, telling Jews and Gentiles alike not to consider themselves superior to the other; that, in Christ there is no Jew or Greek, male or female, etc.

          Also, consider what that setup says: it says that immoral conduct (every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice, envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, etc) is the *result* of leaving God. How is it, then, that there exist so many righteous gays and lesbians? They’re not gay because they reject God, they’re gay because that’s how God made them. I know dozens of gay couples who deeply love and care for each other, how can love and bonding and gentleness be ungodly?

          • JonahFulmer

            First of all Paul is talking to the Roman church, not jews. Secondly, Romans chapter 2 is just a continuation of the sins that he spoke of in chapter 1. A man who lives in sin can not judge based on his own merits. No kidding. But as we can clearly see in the last verse of chapter one it is not man who makes that judgement call concerning the sins spoken of in chapter 1

            “Who knowing the judgement of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” -Rom 1:32.

            What Paul is saying is that we are all worthy of death, because we have gone contrary to God’s law. But when Jesus sacrificed himself as the atonement for mans law breaking he gave us a way out. We just have to accept his free pardon for sin! It’s a great deal. However, once we come to that saving grace we become a new person, one that does not delight in the breaking of God’s law. And the sins that Paul spoke to in Chapter 1 are part of his law. You cannot be a new creature in Christ without putting off the old man. You cannot live in a life style that is contrary to gods word (Jude 1:5-8; 1 Timothy 1:8-11; Mark 10:6-9). I am a sinner just the same as everyone else. And I commit sins on a regular basis, but thanks to Romans 2:4 I know that I can always go to Him for Repentance. I do not despise the riches of his goodness and forbearance. I am thankful for them. But as a creature in Christ I strive to abstain from all things unlawful, according to the new testament. We know that the law was given in the old, but it was made new after Jesus’s sacrifice. It became a school teacher instead of the task master it once was. It points to Christ now instead of eternal separation from Christ. If we just accept Him. But if rejected, as the people spoken of in chapter one, it doesn’t matter how righteous, how much charity you have for your fellow man. You will still die in your sins and stand before a JUST GOD! I know that this statement will make a lot of people upset, but it Mother Teresa never accepted Christ as her personal savior then it doesn’t matter how much good she did or how “holy, loving, and gentle” she was she is still suffering God’s punishment for breaking his law. There is no amount of good that man can do to cover for his own sins. We are not good enough to wash away our own sins. Nor can we ever be. But I better leave off here. If I keep going this post will get so much longer. You got me preaching a sermon on here Dave. This is the last I will say on the matter. I will pray for you Dave

          • Ruth Davis

            Don’t mix apple and oranges they don’t tact the same .

        • PietjePuk

          The truth as per jesus christ himself:

          Matthew 22:36-40

          37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

          Verse 40 is pretty clear, it declares these two principles to be the foundation of all other commandments. It is the “constitution” of christianity. All further laws and commandments get their meaning through these two principles. All interpretations of laws/commandments that can not be deduced from these two are invalid.

          Homosexuality as in a loving and caring relationship does not result in a violation of these two foundational commandments and therefore can not be sin.

          What is Paul then saying in your favorite romans 1, as he obviously can not be a lier?

          First some contextual hints from Romans 1:
          23 They changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, birds, four-footed beasts, and creeping things.
          25 They turned the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

          We both agree that the above ticks the boxes as sinful according to the two foundational laws as it clearly goes against the commandment: Love god. It is about worshipping something else than the living god.

          Lets read further:
          Romans 1:26-27

          “Through this, God gave them over to degrading passions; their women exchanged
          the natural use into one against nature, likewise also the males left
          the natural use of the female, burned in their lust for each other,
          males in males, committing an unseemliness, receiving in themselves the
          appropriate reward for their error.”

          About the words “degrading
          passions:” The Greek phrase translated as “vile affections” in the King
          James Version of the Bible has also been translated into English as:

          “vile affections and degrading passions” (Amplified Bible)

          “dishonourable passions” (English Standard Version)

          “degrading passions” (New American Bible, New American Standard Bible, & New Revised Standard Version)

          “shameful lusts” (New International Version)

          “shameful desires” (New Living Translation)

          “evil things” (Living Bible)

          “shameful affections” (Rheims New Testament)

          “immoral, unnatural drives” (The Great Book: The New Testament in Plain English)

          However,
          in the original Greek, the phrase does not mean “passions” or “lust” as
          people experienced in normal, day-to-day living — the type of emotion
          that one encounters in a marriage or sexually active relationship. It
          refers to the frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery cults
          induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs and music.” It describes
          the results of ritual sexual orgies as performed in many Pagan settings
          at the time. Paul is referring here to Pagan fertility cult worship
          prevalent in Rome at the time.

          About the words “exchanged,”
          “leaving,” “change,” and “abandoned” : These words are important,
          because they precisely describe the people about whom Paul is talking.
          From the text, he is obviously writing about women with a heterosexual
          orientation, who had previously engaged in only heterosexual sex, who
          had subsequently “exchanged” their normal/inborn behaviours for same-sex
          activities. That is, they deviated from their heterosexual orientation
          and engaged in sexual behaviour with other women.

          Similarly, he describes men with a heterosexual orientation who had “abandoned” their
          normal/inborn behaviours and engaged in same-sex activities. In both
          cases, he is describing individuals with a heterosexual orientation, who
          were engaging in same-sex behaviour — in violation of their natural
          desires. In normal life, these are very unusual activities, because
          heterosexuals typically have a strong aversion to engaging in same-sex
          behaviour. However, with the peer pressure, expectations, drugs, alcohol
          and other stimulants present in Pagan sex rituals at the time, they
          appear to have abandoned their normal feelings of abhorrence and engaged
          in same-sex behaviour.

          About the word “natural” : The operative
          term in Paul’s original Greek is “phooskos”, meaning “inborn”, “produced
          by nature” , “agreeable to nature”.

          About the word “against nature,” “unnatural,” etc: The Greek phrase “para physin” is commonly translated into the English as:

          “unnatural and abnormal” (Amplified Bible)

          “contrary to nature” (English Standard Version)

          “against nature” (King James Version, Rheims New Testament)

          “sin with each other” (Living Bible)

          “unnatural” (New American Bible, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version)

          “immoral, unnatural drives” (The Great Book: The New Testament in Plain English)

          These are not accurate translations. They demonstrate prejudice on the part
          of the translators. “Unnatural” implies that the act is something that
          is to be morally condemned. The word “unconventional” would have been a
          more precise word for translators to use.

          Conclusion: Romans 1 does not condemn loving and caring homosexual relationships, as could be expected based on the “constitution” of christianity. It condemns ritual sexual pagan orchies, worshipping other man invented gods, which is in clear contravention of the first founding principle: Love god.

          And although you might not be practicing orgies, the rest of Romans 1 is exactly what you are doing: you are following and believing human invented laws and interpretations, you are following men that wanted to make themselves god, you are following the ilk of mr thomas acquinas, instead of following the teaching of jesus. And that is why Romans 2 is relevant.

          Same applies to Leviticus 18.

          • JonahFulmer

            I just have one question for you. Are you fluent in Greek? Can you speak in it conversationally?

          • PietjePuk

            Fluently is a big word, but I studied greek and latin at high school and have maintained it reasonably after high school. Why?

          • JonahFulmer

            Do you currently have access to the original Translations? Or to even the extent that the Original KJB translators had?

          • PietjePuk

            The Septuagint (often abbreviated as LLX) is a good starting point and is widely available on the internet. It is one of the first translations of the hebrew old testament and is available online. (I can’t read hebrew). For the NT I use bot NA28 and UBS5, of which I prefer the latter.

            (i tried to post including a link but then it end up pending… apologies)

          • JonahFulmer

            So you don’t have originals. Which of course we know you don’t because they don’t exist anymore; so rhetorical question on my part. The Nestle Aland text wouldn’t be what I would go to for anything anyway. I prefer to stay away from anything written by Alexandrian philosophers (none of which were what I would consider evangelical at all). We will most likely come to an impasse since what I believe you are reading is corrupted and was rejected by the early church (not talking about the Catholic crew). On top of which I am sure that what you have is reproductions anyway, correct?

            Anyway, that aside, I believe that I have gotten us off topic. What do you believe that the punishment for breaking God’s law is? And Jesus didn’t say that because the law hung on those two commandments that “All interpretations of laws/commandments that can not be deduced from these two are invalid.” The laws themselves don’t need interpretation when they are pretty point blank.

            “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” – Leviticus 18:22

            All of God’s laws were given out of love. He made them for a reason. It wasn’t because they were meant to be a means to dole out harsh judgements, it was because it was what he expected of his children, the Israelite peoples. Although most of them did have harsh punishments. But it is representative of what awaits those who live contrary to the law. The law is a stumbling block to those that live outside of Christ. It is meant to reveal to us what we need. And that is a savior. Can I ask you something Piet (is ok if I call you Piet)? Do you think you are a good person?

          • PietjePuk

            Can you please explain the difference in treatment of a man that has sex with a woman during her monthly period:
            Leviticus 15: 19, 24 (seven days unclean)
            Leviticus 18: 19 (and in verse 29 the the punishment, kicking the person out of the people of israel).

            Quite a difference for the same thing (at first sight).
            You surely must agree that there is something else at play in Leviticus 18. I would say verse 21 is a good hint.
            And the beginning verses of Leviticus 20 point in the same direction as the punishment is exactly the same as in Leviticus 18:29.

            What is your conclusion?

          • JonahFulmer

            Also, no need to be condescending. I was just asking a question.

          • PietjePuk

            Apologies, I had no intention to be arrogant …

      • lizk

        it is through out the Bible old testament and new testament, God calls it unnatural. Only God can change a person if he allows Him to.

        • PietjePuk

          Something to consider: the truth as per jesus christ himself:

          Matthew 22:36-40

          37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

          Verse 40 is pretty clear, it declares these two principles to be the foundation of all other commandments. It is the “constitution” of christianity. All further laws and commandments get their meaning through these two principles. All interpretations of laws/commandments that can not be deduced from these two are invalid.

          Homosexuality as in a loving and caring relationship does not result in a violation of these two foundational commandments and therefore can not be sin.

          What is Paul then saying in your favorite romans 1, as he obviously can not be a lier?

          First some contextual hints from Romans 1:
          23 They changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, birds, four-footed beasts, and creeping things.
          25 They turned the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

          We both agree that the above ticks the boxes as sinful according to the two foundational laws as it clearly goes against the commandment: Love god. It is about worshipping something else than the living god.

          Lets read further:
          Romans 1:26-27

          “Through this, God gave them over to degrading passions; their women exchanged
          the natural use into one against nature, likewise also the males left
          the natural use of the female, burned in their lust for each other,
          males in males, committing an unseemliness, receiving in themselves the
          appropriate reward for their error.”

          About the words “degrading
          passions:” The Greek phrase translated as “vile affections” in the King
          James Version of the Bible has also been translated into English as:

          “vile affections and degrading passions” (Amplified Bible)

          “dishonourable passions” (English Standard Version)

          “degrading passions” (New American Bible, New American Standard Bible, & New Revised Standard Version)

          “shameful lusts” (New International Version)

          “shameful desires” (New Living Translation)

          “evil things” (Living Bible)

          “shameful affections” (Rheims New Testament)

          “immoral, unnatural drives” (The Great Book: The New Testament in Plain English)

          However,
          in the original Greek, the phrase does not mean “passions” or “lust” as
          people experienced in normal, day-to-day living — the type of emotion
          that one encounters in a marriage or sexually active relationship. It
          refers to the frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery cults
          induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs and music.” It describes
          the results of ritual sexual orgies as performed in many Pagan settings
          at the time. Paul is referring here to Pagan fertility cult worship
          prevalent in Rome at the time.

          About the words “exchanged,”
          “leaving,” “change,” and “abandoned” : These words are important,
          because they precisely describe the people about whom Paul is talking.
          From the text, he is obviously writing about women with a heterosexual
          orientation, who had previously engaged in only heterosexual sex, who
          had subsequently “exchanged” their normal/inborn behaviours for same-sex
          activities. That is, they deviated from their heterosexual orientation
          and engaged in sexual behaviour with other women.

          Similarly, he describes men with a heterosexual orientation who had “abandoned” their
          normal/inborn behaviours and engaged in same-sex activities. In both
          cases, he is describing individuals with a heterosexual orientation, who
          were engaging in same-sex behaviour — in violation of their natural
          desires. In normal life, these are very unusual activities, because
          heterosexuals typically have a strong aversion to engaging in same-sex
          behaviour. However, with the peer pressure, expectations, drugs, alcohol
          and other stimulants present in Pagan sex rituals at the time, they
          appear to have abandoned their normal feelings of abhorrence and engaged
          in same-sex behaviour.

          About the word “natural” : The operative
          term in Paul’s original Greek is “phooskos”, meaning “inborn”, “produced
          by nature” , “agreeable to nature”.

          About the word “against nature,” “unnatural,” etc: The Greek phrase “para physin” is commonly translated into the English as:

          “unnatural and abnormal” (Amplified Bible)

          “contrary to nature” (English Standard Version)

          “against nature” (King James Version, Rheims New Testament)

          “sin with each other” (Living Bible)

          “unnatural” (New American Bible, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version)

          “immoral, unnatural drives” (The Great Book: The New Testament in Plain English)

          These are not accurate translations. They demonstrate prejudice on the part
          of the translators. “Unnatural” implies that the act is something that
          is to be morally condemned. The word “unconventional” would have been a
          more precise word for translators to use.

          Conclusion: Romans 1 does not condemn loving and caring homosexual relationships, as could be expected based on the “constitution” of christianity. It condemns ritual sexual pagan orchies, worshipping other man invented gods, which is in clear contravention of the first founding principle: Love god.

          And although you might not be practicing orgies, the rest of Romans 1 is exactly what you are doing: you are following and believing human invented laws and interpretations, you are following men that wanted to make themselves god, you are following the ilk of mr thomas acquinas, instead of following the teaching of jesus. And that is why Romans 2 is relevant.

          Same applies to Leviticus 18.

          • lizk

            Jesus said follow me. You bring up the 2 commandments which covers the 10. If you love Jesus you will not have any other gods, you will not make images and bow down to them. You will not use the name of the Lord and the 4th says Remember the 7th day in 6 days you shall work but rest on the 7th day …the Lord blessed the 7th day and hallowed it (it is His day not mans day and if a person loves God he will keep His day not just any day). this is the 1st command the 2nd command is to love you neighbor as yourself that includes the other 6. His commands point out sin we are also to remember the other saying of Jesus. I find people pick and chose what they want to read to serve their purpose.

          • PietjePuk

            Sin is only sin if it contravenes the two, Jesus never added homosexuality to the “list”

          • Kivaari

            Wrong on a couple of note. Jesus didn’t add anything to the new testament. He was following the existing old testament, that included the prohibition of homosexual activities. Jesus lived by the words already written. He never wrote a word of either the old or new testament. Even his followers didn’t write a word. People listened to the words of John and Peter and at a later date recorded what they think they heard.
            That is why there is so much contradictory messages in the newer book. Even those stories are rehashing of old pre-Judaic writings.
            That doesn’t diminish the value contained in those teachings, s they were just a guide to living right.
            Certainly you knew that. didn’t you?

          • PietjePuk

            So you don’t believe the bible is written by men inspired by the holy spirit?
            I know quite some things indeed. Jesus gave us two very important rules that gave us clarification of how to read the existing old testament. If you don’t believe those two rules, you don’t believe in christianity. These two rules make it clear that your so called prohibition of homosexual activities is not what it seems to be. And there is no contradiction when it comes to this. Not even with Paul.
            You should also know that your interpretation of scripture only came into fashion a few hundred years after christ. For political reasons.

          • Kivaari

            I said Jesus never wrote a word. I also said none of the main characters in the new testament wrote anything. I said it took a couple generations to get someone to put it on paper. Doing so, we ended up with a bible that contradicts itself. We also know many of the stories also belong to earlier cultures. That’s fine by me. We also know Islam is without foundation. We also know that many Christians hate Jews, for the wrong reason or no reason at all. America and most of Europe developed around Judeo-Christian beliefs. That’s a good thing. I do like how Augustine wrote in defense of Jews and Judaism, telling Christians to not be so bad towards Jews. Christians all over the map, still would kill Jews, “Because they killed Jesus”. Except Jesus had to die, or there would not be Christianity based on that person.
            Paul and John differed in how they wanted Christians to be taken into the religion. Some only wanted Jews while others wanted pagans and gentile of all kinds converted. Too bad so many bad people have used Christianity to kill millions of people. It’s enough to sour a person on religions.

          • Mr. G.

            I’m tempted to say that keeping Jesus’ 2nd commandment covers at least 95% of keeping his 1st one.

          • lizk

            Jesus never changed He is the same yesterday, today and for ever more. Man changed what He has said from old never changes what He spoke and wrote with His fingers did not change all the warnings stay the same..

          • PietjePuk

            I am not sure what you are aiming at, but i agree that jesus didnt change anything of the law. I do believe he explained the law by giving it meaning. When it comes to the topic at hand, there was in the OT (the bible of jesus) nothing that warned against loving and caring homosexual relationships.

      • Ruth Davis

        Haven’t you ever of Sodom and gamorrah?

        • PietjePuk

          S&G was about inhospitality, grave injustice and greed.

          I challenge you to come up with one reference in the bible that states that homosexuality was the sin of S&G. There is none (in original translations).

          The original copyright holders to that story (judaism) concur.

          And if S&G would condemn homosexuality, heterosexuality would be equally condemned in Judges 19 and 20 which is obviously rubbish.

          • Ruth Davis

            Romans 1 – 26 – 32

          • PietjePuk

            Wrong. Romans 1:26-32 does not refer to S&G.

            The truth as per jesus christ himself:

            Matthew 22:36-40

            37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

            Verse 40 is pretty clear, it declares these two principles to be the foundation of all other commandments. It is the “constitution” of christianity. All further laws and commandments get their meaning through these two principles. All interpretations of laws/commandments that can not be deduced from these two are invalid.

            Homosexuality as in a loving and caring relationship does not result in a violation of these two foundational commandments and therefore can not be sin.

            What is Paul then saying in your favorite romans 1, as he obviously can not be a lier?

            First some contextual hints from Romans 1:
            23 They changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, birds, four-footed beasts, and creeping things.
            25 They turned the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

            We both agree that the above ticks the boxes as sinful according to the two foundational laws as it clearly goes against the commandment: Love god. It is about worshipping something else than the living god.

            Lets read further:
            Romans 1:26-27

            “Through this, God gave them over to degrading passions; their women exchanged
            the natural use into one against nature, likewise also the males left
            the natural use of the female, burned in their lust for each other,
            males in males, committing an unseemliness, receiving in themselves the
            appropriate reward for their error.”

            About the words “degrading
            passions:” The Greek phrase translated as “vile affections” in the King
            James Version of the Bible has also been translated into English as:

            “vile affections and degrading passions” (Amplified Bible)

            “dishonourable passions” (English Standard Version)

            “degrading passions” (New American Bible, New American Standard Bible, & New Revised Standard Version)

            “shameful lusts” (New International Version)

            “shameful desires” (New Living Translation)

            “evil things” (Living Bible)

            “shameful affections” (Rheims New Testament)

            “immoral, unnatural drives” (The Great Book: The New Testament in Plain English)

            However,
            in the original Greek, the phrase does not mean “passions” or “lust” as
            people experienced in normal, day-to-day living — the type of emotion
            that one encounters in a marriage or sexually active relationship. It
            refers to the frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery cults
            induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs and music.” It describes
            the results of ritual sexual orgies as performed in many Pagan settings
            at the time. Paul is referring here to Pagan fertility cult worship
            prevalent in Rome at the time.

            About the words “exchanged,”
            “leaving,” “change,” and “abandoned” : These words are important,
            because they precisely describe the people about whom Paul is talking.
            From the text, he is obviously writing about women with a heterosexual
            orientation, who had previously engaged in only heterosexual sex, who
            had subsequently “exchanged” their normal/inborn behaviours for same-sex
            activities. That is, they deviated from their heterosexual orientation
            and engaged in sexual behaviour with other women.

            Similarly, he describes men with a heterosexual orientation who had “abandoned” their
            normal/inborn behaviours and engaged in same-sex activities. In both
            cases, he is describing individuals with a heterosexual orientation, who
            were engaging in same-sex behaviour — in violation of their natural
            desires. In normal life, these are very unusual activities, because
            heterosexuals typically have a strong aversion to engaging in same-sex
            behaviour. However, with the peer pressure, expectations, drugs, alcohol
            and other stimulants present in Pagan sex rituals at the time, they
            appear to have abandoned their normal feelings of abhorrence and engaged
            in same-sex behaviour.

            About the word “natural” : The operative
            term in Paul’s original Greek is “phooskos”, meaning “inborn”, “produced
            by nature” , “agreeable to nature”.

            About the word “against nature,” “unnatural,” etc: The Greek phrase “para physin” is commonly translated into the English as:

            “unnatural and abnormal” (Amplified Bible)

            “contrary to nature” (English Standard Version)

            “against nature” (King James Version, Rheims New Testament)

            “sin with each other” (Living Bible)

            “unnatural” (New American Bible, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version)

            “immoral, unnatural drives” (The Great Book: The New Testament in Plain English)

            These are not accurate translations. They demonstrate prejudice on the part
            of the translators. “Unnatural” implies that the act is something that
            is to be morally condemned. The word “unconventional” would have been a
            more precise word for translators to use.

            Conclusion: Romans 1 does not condemn loving and caring homosexual relationships, as could be expected based on the “constitution” of christianity. It condemns ritual sexual pagan orchies, worshipping other man invented gods, which is in clear contravention of the first founding principle: Love god.

            And although you might not be practicing orgies, the rest of Romans 1 is exactly what you are doing: you are following and believing human invented laws and interpretations, you are following men that wanted to make themselves god, you are following the ilk of mr thomas acquinas, instead of following the teaching of jesus. And that is why Romans 2 is relevant.

            Same applies to Leviticus 18.

        • Mr. G.

          Sodom and Gomorrah is a myth made up to explain a natural disaster. It condemns inhospitality, injustice, and greed with a rape (not a loving act) thrown in for a good measure.

  • Les Mcc

    Their “belief that the outstretched arms of Jesus on the cross are a sign of the very love of God reaching out to us all” might bite them in the end someday. TO say that Jesus death somehow is the basis to allow homosexuals to marry and continue in their sin…might as well say that pedophiles should be able to “marry whom they love”.

  • tim

    The Anglican Church if possible needs to fire the Archbishop of the episcopal church and all the ministers that will not heed to the word of God , if that Action cant take place cut them off from the church and dont let the money influence you to keep them. They are fill not with love of God but hate for God’s word.

    • Bill Cater

      Fortunately, the Anglican Communion has no such powers. 🙂

  • GibbyD

    And God will refuse you entrance into Heaven . He also will not save you from an eternity separated from Him and fixed forever in the place He prepared for The Devil . The remedy applies only now and is actuated by , ” ..repentance toward God ( HOLY LOVE) and faith toward The LORD Jesus Christ ( God incarnate ). ( Acts 20:21; 1st John 4:7,8; John 1:1-14; Ephesians 2:8,9; 1st John 5:13; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Romans 6:17; Romans 6:23; John 3:3; 1st Peter 1:23)KJB

    • Bill Cater

      Judgemental much, GibbyD? That’s not a job that belings to you.

      • GibbyD

        “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” ( John 17:17)KJB

        I am not the one who has said it , it is God Who proclaims it.

        “But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.” ( Revelation 21:8)KJB

        “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” ( 1st Corinthians 6:9,10)KJB.

        “But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.” ( 1st Corinthians 5:11)KJB.

        “For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.” ( Ephesians 5:5)KJB

        “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:) Colossians 3:5)KJB

  • lee metzger

    It’s interesting they say homosexuality isn’t sin. Now since the Bible clearly says it IS, what authority do they “channel” in order to make such an absurd statement?

    • acontraryview

      Perhaps the same authority some churches have taken upon themselves to perform marriage ceremonies for people who have been previously divorced for reasons other than adultery. You know, like over 25% of evangelicals.

      • lee metzger

        In my church, if you are unbiblically divorced, the pastor will not marry you again. That some will marry in spite of that is their sin, and God will deal with them for that. As far as the authority for Episcopalians, it’s pretty simple. They’re in rebellion against the very God they profess to love and submit to, substituting the traditions of men for the kind and generous behavioral boundaries established by God. Everytime the human race thinks they’re more enlightened that God, they always make the wrong call. Even in scripture, we have classic examples of what happens when you ignore these precepts, and the end result is never good.

        • acontraryview

          “In my church, if you are unbiblically divorced, the pastor will not marry you again. That some will marry in spite of that is their sin, and God will deal with them for that.”

          So then any church that does perform such marriages – which would be the vast majority of Christian denominations – are “in rebellion against God” “and God will deal with them for that”. Yes?

          • lee metzger

            Yes he will. Just like he has with the Episcopalian church, for example. They no longer are a biblical church, and people are leaving them in droves. THAT’S how He deals with them, but causing its members to leave the apostate church. I’m starting to think you’re merely a hack for the left though. You said to someone above that civil marriage didn’t exist in the time of the Bible. That’s patently wrong. From the beginning of Genesis, God established marriage to be between a man and a woman. It’s stupid human beings who mandated concubines and mistresses as being socially okay, with the predicted disastrous jealousies and even worse, that caused the same problems, heartache and misery THEN as straying from one’s wife does today.

  • John_33

    Would we be having this conversation if a church came out an endorsed adultery, celebrated it, and claimed that God’s love blessed it? Why is this any different with same-sex “marriage”? This is a false church.

    • acontraryview

      Oh, yes, because goodness knows that no real Christian church performs marriage ceremonies for people who have been divorced for reasons other than adultery. And no church gives communion to unmarried people who are having sexual relations. And no church will baptize a baby that was born to an unwed mother.

      Hypocrites.

      • John_33

        Although what you said is incorrect, how does that change what I said if it was correct? If there are churches that are indeed celebrating adultery, then that doesn’t change the fact that churches that celebrate homosexuality are wrong.

        • acontraryview

          What did I say that was incorrect?

          “If there are churches that are indeed celebrating adultery”

          Is performing a marriage ceremony for a couple where either one or both had been previously divorced for reasons other than adultery “celebrating adultery” or is it simply a marriage ceremony celebrating the commitment of two people?

          “then that doesn’t change the fact that churches that celebrate homosexuality are wrong.”

          Is a marriage ceremony between two people of opposite gender a celebration of heterosexuality? Or is it a ceremony recognizing a commitment between two people?

          While you are certainly free to believe such actions are wrong, there are others who disagree. No, John, if you ARE God, then you can say with certainty that those who do so are wrong. But if are NOT God, John, then it is merely your opinion based upon what you have chosen to believe.

          That’s why it’s called “faith” and not “fact”.

          • John_33

            God has already said it is wrong, and that is why this is an issue.

          • acontraryview

            Well, Johnny, a couple of things. First of all, the Bible makes no mention of two people of the same gender entering into a civil contract of marriage. Second, while you are certainly free to choose to believe that that the Bible contains God’s words, unless you ARE God, you cannot not say so with certainty. it is a belief, John. There are others as well. You are no more able to prove that yours is definitively true, than others are that theirs are. They are all matters of faith.

            “that is why this is an issue.”

            Only for those who disagree.

          • John_33

            The Bible defines marriage (not simply civil marriage) as between men and women only. As a result, same-sex “marriage” is invalid and the relations are considered fornication. Since you don’t believe in the Bible, I can only conclude that you are here just to cause a fight since Christians believe the Bible to be the Word of God.

          • acontraryview

            “The Bible defines marriage (not simply civil marriage) as between men and women only.”

            The Bible doesn’t define civil marriage at all, as it didn’t exist at the time. Please cite where the bible defines marriage as being ONLY between a man and woman.

            “the relations are considered fornication.”

            Any sexual relations outside of marriage are fornication. Given that, why do we not see outrage from some Christians regarding the legality of sexual relations outside of marriage?

            “I can only conclude that you are here just to cause a fight”

            I have no desire to cause “a fight”. I’m here for discussion.

            “Christians believe the Bible to be the Word of God and base their decisions off of it.”

            I completely respect that and support the right of each individual to believe as they choose and to base their personal decisions on their faith. Perhaps one day Christians will be able to come to agreement on the totality of what that means. To date, however, the various sects of Christianity, despite using the same book, cannot even agree on a common interpretation of the Bible. Perhaps you can tell me which sect of Christianity is the correct one. Baptist? Southern Baptist? Presbyterian? Amish? Mennonite? Some other?

          • John_33

            “The Bible doesn’t define civil marriage at all, as it didn’t exist at the time. Please cite where the bible defines marriage as being ONLY between a man and woman.”

            The Bible doesn’t need to define “civil” marriage since it defines marriage, which encompasses all forms. As for where the definition is in the Bible, see Matthew 19:3-6. Jesus defined marriage as being between men and women. Notice how He says that a man will leave his parents to join a wife (not a husband).

            “Any sexual relations outside of marriage are fornication. Given that, why do we not see outrage from some Christians regarding the legality of sexual relations outside of marriage?”

            Many churches do oppose it. I hear of opposition to fornication all the time.

            I have no desire to cause “a fight”. I’m here for discussion

            You weren’t here for a discussion in the previous replies when you were insulting me.

            I completely respect that and support the right of each individual to believe as they choose and to base their personal decisions on their faith. Perhaps one day Christians will be able to come to agreement on the totality of what that means. To date, however, the various sects of Christianity, despite using the same book, cannot even agree on a common interpretation of the Bible. Perhaps you can tell me which sect of Christianity is the correct one. Baptist? Southern Baptist? Presbyterian? Amish? Mennonite? Some other?

            The Apostle Paul told new believers not to think in terms of sects. The church is Christ’s, not man’s.

          • acontraryview

            “The Bible doesn’t need to define “civil” marriage”

            I’m glad we agree that the Bible does not discuss civil marriage.

            “since it defines marriage”

            Only for those who have chosen to adhere to the Christian faith.

            “Notice how He says that a man will leave his parents to join a wife (not a husband).”

            Notice how he does NOT include the word “only”. Indeed, some men will leave their parents to join a wife. Others will not.

            “Many churches do oppose it. I hear of opposition to fornication all the time.”

            No doubt. But do you see a big uproar about it being legal? Do you see a big push to make it illegal because it violates the Christian belief system?

            “You weren’t here for a discussion in the previous replies when you were insulting me.”

            Please cite where I “insulted” you.

            “The Apostle Paul told new believers not to think in terms of sects.”

            That does not answer my question.

          • John_33

            I’m glad we agree that the Bible does not discuss civil marriage.

            The Bible defines marriage, which encompasses all forms of marriage including civil marriage. Subcategories must conform to the core definition of the main category.

            Only for those who have chosen to adhere to the Christian faith.

            Nope, it’s for everyone.

            Notice how he does NOT include the word “only”. Indeed, some men will leave their parents to join a wife. Others will not.

            You just did what you accused me of by adding the word “some.” 🙂 It doesn’t say “some” or even “many.” It simply says that marriage is a man leaving father and mother to cleave to his wife. It even says that marriage was created because God created humans as male and female. You can’t have marriage without at least one man and one woman.

            No doubt. But do you see a big uproar about it being legal? Do you see a big push to make it illegal because it violates the Christian belief system?

            There are larger issues that are getting greater attention at the moment, but if you’re asking me, I absolutely support creating laws against it. Same goes for adultery too.

            Please cite where I “insulted” you.

            I don’t care, but calling me “Johnny” is childish and trite. Stick with the issue.

            That does not answer my question.

            It did answer the question. You asked which sect is correct and I explained that the Bible says not to think in terms of sects. The true church is not in sects. It’s in Christ.

          • acontraryview

            “The Bible defines marriage, which encompasses all forms of marriage including civil marriage.”

            Since civil marriage is a governmental institution and governmental marriage did not exist in Biblical times, the Bible does not address civil marriage.

            “Subcategories must conform to the core definition of the main category.”

            Not under our Constitution.

            “Nope, it’s for everyone.”

            Why would Biblical constraints be applicable to those who are not Christian?

            “You just did what you accused me of by adding the word “some.””

            I didn’t add the word “some” to what the Bible says. Some is a conclusion based upon what the Bible says. Please see Matthew 19:11-12. ” “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given:” “He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.””

            In other words: some. I’ll also point out that in Matthew 19:11-12, Jesus makes clear that homosexuals are born as homosexuals.

            “There are larger issues that are getting greater attention at the moment,”

            Really? Some sins are “larger” than others? Given the relative populations and behaviors, how is allowing approximately 4% of the population the right to enter into a government issued contract of marriage “larger” than making it illegal for people to not engage in sexual relations prior to marriage or divorce for reasons other than adultery, or to bear children outside of marriage?

            “I absolutely support creating laws against it. Same goes for adultery too.”

            So then you are not a supporter of our Constitution and the freedoms and liberties it protects, correct? You would prefer that the US were a Christian Theocracy?

            “I don’t care, but calling me “Johnny” is childish and trite.”

            So you can’t cite where I insulted you which makes your claim a lie.

            “You asked which sect is correct and I explained that the Bible says not to think in terms of sects.”

            That is not an answer to my question. Which sect of Christianity has the correct understanding of the Bible? You clearly stated that the Episcopal church is false, so you are condemning one sect, which means you are addressing sects. So, if the Episcopal sect is false, which sect is true?

          • John_33

            Since civil marriage is a governmental institution and governmental marriage did not exist in Biblical times, the Bible does not address civil marriage.

            The Bible explains why God created marriage. Governments can define civil marriage as something different, but if it differs with the Bible, then it is done in flagrant disobedience and God will not recognize it.

            Not under our Constitution.

            The Constitution has nothing to do with it.

            Why would Biblical constraints be applicable to those who are not Christian?

            Because God is God over everybody. John 3:16 doesn’t start with “For God so loved the Christians…” It says “For God so loved the world…” God holds everyone responsible for what they do whether they are a Christian or not.

            I didn’t add the word “some” to what the Bible says. Some is a conclusion based upon what the Bible says. Please see Matthew 19:11-12. ” “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given:” “He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.””

            In other words: some. I’ll also point out that in Matthew 19:11-12, Jesus makes clear that homosexuals are born as homosexuals.

            Add verses 9-10. The Apostles were amazed when Jesus said that divorce was only allowed for fornication, and they said that it wasn’t good for anyone to marry. Jesus then explained in Matthew 19:11-12 that marriage is only given for some people on earth. Think of your argument: Jesus just gave a strict ruling on divorce, so the Apostles assumed that marriage was a bad thing. Jesus corrected them and said that marriage was only given for some. According to you, Jesus was actually saying, “Don’t worry about my ruling on divorce, because gays can marry!” What kind of logic is that? Can gays somehow divorce differently? It makes no sense. Marriage was not given for those described in Matthew 19-11-12 (those with birth defects, those who were castrated, and those who choose celibacy – gays have nothing to do with it).

            What I find sad but ironic is that I often see gays argue that Matthew 19:11-12 refers to them, but I also see transgendered individuals argue that it means them too. So which is it? Was Jesus talking about gays or transgendered individuals? He was talking about neither, but activists wish to force themselves into the text to justify their acts. The truth is that they cannot be in the text since the Bible condemns their lifestyle.

            Really? Some sins are “larger” than others? Given the relative populations and behaviors, how is allowing approximately 4% of the population the right to enter into a government issued contract of marriage “larger” than making it illegal for people to not engage in sexual relations prior to marriage or divorce for reasons other than adultery, or to bear children outside of marriage?

            I’m not excusing fornication in any way. I condemn it completely and many churches do, and if there was a way to forbid it through the law, then I would support it, but there are greater sins that are rampant in the West that are taking up many Christians’ time in addressing them. According to Jesus, there are greater sins. In the Old Testament, fornication was given a lesser penalty while homosexual activity was given the death penalty. Many sins in the West today are considered very, very serious according to the Bible, and they have ramifications.

            So then you are not a supporter of our Constitution and the freedoms and liberties it protects, correct? You would prefer that the US were a Christian Theocracy?

            Fornication was illegal in the US before.

            So you can’t cite where I insulted you which makes your claim a lie.

            LOL, your response proves my point.

            That is not an answer to my question. Which sect of Christianity has the correct understanding of the Bible? You clearly stated that the Episcopal church is false, so you are condemning one sect, which means you are addressing sects. So, if the Episcopal sect is false, which sect is true?

            I answered it, but you simply don’t like the answer. God’s Word rules over the churches. Any church that openly teaches sin and celebrates it is a false church. This Episcopalian has demonstrated that it’s a false church by its rebellion against God.

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            Yes indeed, John. I’ve noticed the irony, as well, in the homosexual and the transgendered activist crowds both claiming that Matthew 19:12 is referring to them.

            Taken within context and cataloging all Biblical references of the term “eunuch” together though, God’s Word is clear that it refers to neither of those. Eunuchs were simply castrated/celibate men who served in high-ranking capacity under royal authority.

            For those interested, here’s a study document which contains all such references (with an included summary, at the end).

            biblewordstudyorg/eunuchs.html

          • John_33

            Thanks Adam. That link is very handy – especially II Kings 20:18; Isa. 39:7 where God pronounces it as a curse rather than a blessing.

          • acontraryview

            You may find these study documents to be of interest:

            http://wwwfredsbibletalkcom/eunuchs.html

            http://wwwgaychristian101com/Homosexual-Eunuchs.html

            “http://wwwwouldjesusdiscriminateorg/biblical_evidence/born_gay.

          • John_33

            Sadly, this material is more of the same and offers no real evidence to actually connect ancient eunuchs to homosexuals. Instead, it twists the historical record and the words of renowned scholars who emphatically declare homosexuality to be anathema to scripture. Take Robert A. J. Gagnon for example. He actually said the following in his book:

            “Some have argued that the reason for the prohibition against males having intercourse with males is because of the connection of such behavior with idolatry…Few today give this argument much credence and for good reason. The repetition of the prohibition against homosexual intercourse in [Leviticus] 20:13 does not follow immediately upon the references to child sacrifice in 20:2-5, but rather is sandwiched in between prohibitions of adultery and incest (20:10-12) and prohibitions of incest and bestiality (20:14-16).” ~ Robert A. J. Gagnon in The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics

          • acontraryview

            “Sadly, this material is more of the same and offers no real evidence to actually connect ancient eunuchs to homosexuals.”

            I can only assume you didn’t actually read the material, as it does provide significant evidence. Proof? No. Evidence? Most certainly.

            “Instead, it twists the historical record”

            How so?

            “The repetition of the prohibition against homosexual intercourse in [Leviticus] 20:13”

            It’s always fascinating when Christians quote Leviticus when addressing homosexuality, but then completely ignore many of the other prohibitions that Leviticus mentioned. A bit hypocritical, wouldn’t you say?

          • John_33

            I read the material, and I saw absolutely no connection to ancient eunuchs and homosexuality.

            ”It’s always fascinating when Christians quote Leviticus when addressing homosexuality, but then completely ignore many of the other prohibitions that Leviticus mentioned. A bit hypocritical, wouldn’t you say?”

            Some commandments are for the Jewish people while others are for everyone. The commandment against homosexual behavior is for everyone.

          • acontraryview

            “I read the material, and I saw absolutely no connection to ancient eunuchs and homosexuality.”

            Then you need to work on reading comprehension.

            “Some commandments are for the Jewish people while others are for everyone. The commandment against homosexual behavior is for everyone.”

            And how does one determine which are just for Jews and which apply to everyone? Doesn’t Matthew 5:17 – 19 contradict your view?

          • John_33

            And how does one determine which are just for Jews and which apply to everyone? Doesn’t Matthew 5:17 – 19 contradict your view?

            The Law tells you which commandments are for which. When Jesus upheld the Law, He also upheld this distinction.

          • acontraryview

            “Eunuchs were simply castrated/celibate men”

            So when Jesus was quoted as saying: “For there are eunuchs who were born that way” you are suggesting that he is referring to men who were born castrated/celibate? Castration is an action and celibacy is a choice. Therefore how could either of those be “born that way”?

            You may find these study documents to be of interest:

            http://wwwfredsbibletalkcom/eunuchs.html

            http://wwwgaychristian101com/Homosexual-Eunuchs.html

            “http://wwwwouldjesusdiscriminateorg/biblical_evidence/born_gay.html

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            I reject your response to me, as well as those false teachings that you provided 🙂

          • acontraryview

            Why?

          • acontraryview

            “Governments can define civil marriage as something different”

            I’m glad we agree that civil marriage and the religious rite of matrimony are two different things.

            “God will not recognize it.”

            While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, unless you are God you cannot say with certainty what God will recognize and what God will not.

            “The Constitution has nothing to do with it.”

            The Constitution serves as a basis for our laws. Civil marriage is governed by law. Therefore, yes, the Constitution does have bearing on civil marriage.

            “Jesus corrected them and said that marriage was only given for some.”

            Oh, good, then we agree that Jesus used the word “some”.

            “According to you, Jesus was actually saying, “Don’t worry about my ruling on divorce, because gays can marry!””

            No, that is not where my argument would lead.

            “those with birth defects”

            How do you know that Jesus was referring to birth defects? Men being born without testes is extraordinarily rare. So rare that it would be doubtful that he would mention them as a separate category.

            “but I also see transgendered individuals argue that it means them too.”

            Really? I’ve never seen anyone make such an argument. Would you be good enough to refer me to some examples?

            “He was talking about neither”

            How do you know for certain? Given that homosexuals were often placed in important positions in Roman times, and thus their existence was fully known, and Jesus made a point of saying that some men who did not want to have sexual relations with women were born that way, how would it be logical to conclude that he was NOT talking about homosexual men?

            “and if there was a way to forbid it through the law, then I would support it”

            Of course there is a way. You get enough people together to get a ballot measure, and they vote on it. Or, as an alternative, you get enough people elected to a legislative body and they pass a law making it illegal. The process is not complicated. Of course, no such law would pass muster under the Constitution and thus would not stay on the books very long, but you could certainly work to get one passed. Yet, you see no big push by Christians to pass such a law. Why is that?

            “In the Old Testament, fornication was given a lesser penalty while homosexual activity was given the death penalty.”

            In the OT it says that a man who finds out his wife is not a virgin should stone her. Do you also support that?

            “Fornication was illegal in the US before.”

            That is not an answer to my questions, so I’ll ask again: you are not a supporter of our Constitution and the freedoms and liberties it protects, correct? You would prefer that the US were a Christian Theocracy?

            “LOL, your response proves my point.”

            What point of yours do you believe is proven by my addressing that your accusation of insult was untrue and thus a lie?

            “God’s Word rules over the churches. Any church that openly teaches sin and celebrates it is a false church. This Episcopalian church has demonstrated that it’s a false church by its open rebellion against God and His Word.”

            But different sects of Christianity have different views on what is sin and what is not. Baptists believe that it is a sin to drink or gamble. So is any church that allows that a false church? The Amish believe that it is a sin to use electricity. So is any church that uses electricity a false church? Is any church that marries a couple that has been previously divorced for reasons other than adultery a false church? Which sect is true and which are false?

          • John_33

            Oh, good, then we agree that Jesus used the word “some”.

            Yes, Jesus explained that the “some” He was talking about weren’t given in marriage. 🙂

            No, that is not where my argument would lead.

            Actually, it would. Jesus was responding to the Apostles when they said that it was not good to marry because of the requirements of divorce. Why would Jesus talk about alternative forms of “marriage” in response? It wouldn’t make any sense.

            How do you know that Jesus was referring to birth defects? Men being born without testes is extraordinarily rare. So rare that it would be doubtful that he would mention them as a separate category.

            You speak from ignorance. The Romans classified eunuchs based on birth defects. This includes the Spado, Thlibiae, and Thlasiae.

            Really? I’ve never seen anyone make such an argument. Would you be good enough to refer me to some examples?

            Google transgender Christian Bible eunuch. It will eventually come up.

            How do you know for certain? Given that homosexuals were often placed in important positions in Roman times, and thus their existence was fully known, and Jesus made a point of saying that some men who did not want to have sexual relations with women were born that way, how would it be logical to conclude that he was NOT talking about homosexual men?

            Homosexuals were viewed negatively in Roman times. “Active” homosexuals were considered acceptable, but “passive” homosexuals were considered effeminate and were subject to derision. That’s why Julius Caesar (before he became Caesar) was mocked by his opponents who called him the “Queen of Bithynia” for his rumored homosexual relationship with Nicomedes IV.

            Also, Jesus did not say that “men who did not want to have sexual relations with women were born that way.” Where did you get that? Not from the text.

            In the OT it says that a man who finds out his wife is not a virgin should stone her. Do you also support that?

            As a Christian, my goal is not to institute the Law on earth but rather to see the gospel spread where souls repent from their sins and receive forgiveness and salvation. This applies to everyone including those who identify as members in the LGBT community.

            That is not an answer to my questions, so I’ll ask again: you are not a supporter of our Constitution and the freedoms and liberties it protects, correct? You would prefer that the US were a Christian Theocracy?

            No, I don’t support a Christian theocracy but I absolutely support Christian input in the democracy like Christian Abolitionism. It was a good thing.

            What point of yours do you believe is proven by my addressing that your accusation of insult was untrue and thus a lie?

            Lol. 🙂

            But different sects of Christianity have different views on what is sin and what is not. Baptists believe that it is a sin to drink or gamble. So is any church that allows that a false church? The Amish believe that it is a sin to use electricity. So is any church that uses electricity a false church? Is any church that marries a couple that has been previously divorced for reasons other than adultery a false church? Which sect is true and which are false?

            Any sect that celebrates something and calls it good when the Bible teaches it to be evil (especially when it merits the death penalty) is a false church. And whenever a church celebrates and calls good what God calls good is a true church.

          • acontraryview

            “Why would Jesus talk about alternative forms of “marriage” in response?”

            He didn’t. Nor did I ever suggest that he did.

            “The Romans classified eunuchs based on birth defects. This includes the Spado, Thlibiae, and Thlasiae.”

            “Spado (plural: spadones) is the generic term for a variety of sub-types of asexual men.” Not a birth defect.

            “Thlibiae were those eunuchs whose testicles were bruised or pressed. Mathew Kuefler says the word comes from the Greek verb thlibein ‘to press hard’. The process was to tie the scrotum tightly in order to sever the vas deferens without amputation.” – Not a birth defect

            “Thladiae (from a Greek verb thlan ‘to crush’) refers to that category of eunuch whose testicles were crushed.” – Not a birth defect.

            “Homosexuals were viewed negatively in Roman times. “Active” homosexuals were considered acceptable”

            So which is it – “viewed negatively” or “considered acceptable”. It can’t be both.

            “Jesus did not say that “men who did not want to have sexual relations with women were born that way.” Where did you get that? Not from the text.”

            Nor did I ever suggest that Jesus said those words. What I said was that mentioned three distinct types of eunuchs. Had the term “eunuch” referred only to either castrated males or men who eschewed sexual relations in service to the church, there would have been no reason to mention a third category. It is logical to conclude that the third category refers to men who are born without a sexual desire for women. What else would it make sense for it to refer to?

            “my goal is not to institute the Law on earth”

            You: “and if there was a way to forbid it through the law, then I would support it”

            Those two statements appear to contradict each other, do they not?

            “No, I don’t support a Christian theocracy”

            Yet you support putting laws in place that restrict the rights of citizens based upon nothing more than they are labeled as sins in the Bible. Is that not a Christian Theocracy?

            “Lol. :)”

            So you can’t cite what point of yours was proven by my addressing that your accusation of insult was untrue and thus a lie. Got it. Thanks.

            “Any sect that celebrates something and calls it good when the Bible teaches it to be evil…..is a false church”

            As I pointed out, different sects have their own views on what the Bible teaches as “evil”. So I’ll ask again: Which sect’s interpretation is used to determine which churches are false and which are true?

          • John_33

            ”Actually, he was saying that not all men will be given in marriage to a woman.

            Are you sure? What if He really meant that not all men will be given in marriage to human beings? Maybe eunuchs are those who desire to be with animals. Why not?

            “Spado…Not a birth defect.”

            The article you cited from proves my point. Read the next line:

            “Walter Stevenson argues that the term spado does not seem to have included those who were castrated.

            “‘Spado is the generic name under which those who are spadones by birth as well as thlibiae, thlasiae and whatever other type of spado exists, are contained.'” These spadones are contrasted with castrati….”

            Kuefler says Ulpian distinguishes those who had been mutilated from those who were spadones by nature; that is, either born without the full sex organs or those whose sex organs failed to develop at puberty.

            Nor did I ever suggest that Jesus said those words.

            You did, and I quote:

            “Jesus made a point of saying that some men who did not want to have sexual relations with women were born that way,”

            It is logical to conclude that the third category refers to men who are born without a sexual desire for women. What else would it make sense for it to refer to?

            Birth defects. They occurred in nature often enough that ancient sources discussed it regularly.

            Those two statements appear to contradict each other, do they not?

            Not at all. I support laws against bad things, but my goal is not to implement the Law but to further the gospel of Christ.

            Yet you support putting laws in place that restrict the rights of citizens based upon nothing more than they are labeled as sins in the Bible. Is that not a Christian Theocracy?

            No, I support the current form of government that allows its citizens to participate in the public sphere by convincing people of the rightness of implementing certain laws to protect and guard society.

            So you can’t cite what point of yours was proven by my addressing that your accusation of insult was untrue and thus a lie. Got it. Thanks.

            I already addressed it.

            As I pointed out, different sects have their own views on what the Bible teaches as “evil”. So I’ll ask again: Which sect’s interpretation is used to determine which churches are false and which are true?

            Already addressed.

          • acontraryview

            “Are you sure?”

            I think the word “some” pretty much answers that question.

            ““Jesus made a point of saying that some men who did not want to have sexual relations with women were born that way,””

            You are correct. I did say that, and that was not a direct quote. It was based upon the fact that eunuchs did not desire sexual relations with women. It was a logical conclusion, not a direct quote. My apologies.

            “They occurred in nature often enough that ancient sources discussed it regularly.”

            Really? The incidence of men being born with missing or not fully formed testes is exceedingly rare. What “ancient sources” discussed it regularly?

            “I support laws against bad things”

            Isn’t your definition of “bad” based upon Christian teachings?

            “No, I support the current form of government that allows its citizens to participate in the public sphere by convincing people of the rightness of implementing certain laws to protect and guard society.”

            Protect and guard them against what? Biblical sin?

            “I already addressed it.”

            No, you did not. While you felt that one of comments was “childish and trite”, you never pointed out where i insulted you. If you are suggesting that my use of “johnny” was a “insult” then you are quite sensitive.

            “Already addressed.”

            No, you did not address it. What you said was; “The Apostle Paul told new believers not to think in terms of sects.” While Paul may have said that, the reality is that Christians do belong to sects and each sect has different opinions regarding certain things that are “evil”. When you say that “Any sect that celebrates something and calls it good when the Bible teaches it to be evil (especially when it merits the death penalty) is a false church.” requires that you have a certain view of what is “evil” which varies from sect to sect. Therefore, to determine the totality of what is “evil” requires that one hold to a certain sect’s views on the totality of what is evil. So I’ll ask again: Which sect determines what is “evil” as a basis for deciding which church is false and which is true?

          • John_33

            I think the word “some” pretty much answers that question.

            No, I don’t think so. You have yet to establish who the “some” are and why Jesus is distinguishing them from the rest.

            You are correct. I did say that, and that was not a direct quote. It was based upon the fact that eunuchs did not desire sexual relations with women. It was a logical conclusion, not a direct quote. My apologies.

            Apologies accepted and thank you for standing up and admitting it.

            Really? The incidence of men being born with missing or not fully formed testes is exceedingly rare. What “ancient sources” discussed it regularly?

            I’m not going to quote-mind, but Hippocrates, Aristotle, Ulpian, and Justinian, among others. It was a common topic.

            Isn’t your definition of “bad” based upon Christian teachings?

            Sure, that is why Christian abolitionists fought against the injustice of slavery.

            Protect and guard them against what? Biblical sin?

            Error, injustice, inhumanity, inequality, unfairness, etc.

            No, you did not. While you felt that one of comments was “childish and trite”, you never pointed out where i insulted you. If you are suggesting that my use of “johnny” was a “insult” then you are quite sensitive.

            Again, I said I didn’t care about it, but it makes your argument weaker when you deviate. Stick with the topic.

            No, you did not address it. What you said was; “The Apostle Paul told new believers not to think in terms of sects.” While Paul may have said that, the reality is that Christians do belong to sects and each sect has different opinions regarding certain things that are “evil”. When you say that “Any sect that celebrates something and calls it good when the Bible teaches it to be evil (especially when it merits the death penalty) is a false church.” requires that you have a certain view of what is “evil” which varies from sect to sect. Therefore, to determine the totality of what is “evil” requires that one hold to a certain sect’s views on the totality of what is evil. So I’ll ask again: Which sect determines what is “evil” as a basis for deciding which church is false and which is true?

            Yes, but many sects overlap. Who decides what is evil? God has already decided, and He has already showed us what is right and what is wrong in the Bible. So, for sects, the Bible is the deciding factor.

          • acontraryview

            “You have yet to establish who the “some” are and why Jesus is distinguishing them from the rest.”

            Men who desire women. The passage is clear on that.

            “Apologies accepted and thank you for standing up and admitting it.”

            You’re welcome. Unfortunate that you can’t admit that you misspoke when you said I “insulted” you.

            “Error, injustice, inhumanity, inequality, unfairness, etc.”

            Oh, great. That would mean that you support two citizens of the same gender being allowed to enter into civil marriage, as it most definitely is both an issue of inequality and unfairness for two citizens to be treated differently under the law, and harmed in the process, based solely upon their gender based upon nothing more than it goes against some people’s religious beliefs. I knew you’d come around!

            “Yes, but many sects overlap.”

            No question about it. They also, however, differ in some respects as to what they believe is evil.

            “So, for sects, the Bible is the deciding factor.”

            Yet, using the same book as their basis, different sects have different views on what is “evil”. So, when deciding which church is false and which is true, based upon their supporting, or not supporting, something that is “evil”, which sect’s views on the totality of “evil” is used as the criteria?

          • John_33

            Men who desire women. The passage is clear on that.

            Actually, it speaks of nothing about “men who desire women.” That is your contortion of the scripture. Many eunuchs wished they could marry, settle down, and have children but they physically could not do so. Isaiah says that this is the case.

            You’re welcome. Unfortunate that you can’t admit that you misspoke when you said I “insulted” you.

            I stand by my comments. It detracts from the issue, and you keep bringing it up.

            “Oh, great. That would mean that you support two citizens of the same gender being allowed to enter into civil marriage, as it most definitely is both an issue of inequality and unfairness for two citizens to be treated differently under the law, and harmed in the process, based solely upon their gender based upon nothing more than it goes against some people’s religious beliefs. I knew you’d come around!”

            Why would it be unequal and unfair? Marriage requires men and women for it to be a marriage. It’s simply part of the requirement. There’s nothing unequal about having definitions, and this is a fundamental part of the definition of marriage regardless of what civil governments state.

            No question about it. They also, however, differ in some respects as to what they believe is evil… Yet, using the same book as their basis, different sects have different views on what is “evil”. So, when deciding which church is false and which is true, based upon their supporting, or not supporting, something that is “evil”, which sect’s views on the totality of “evil” is used as the criteria?

            And people within those sects disagree with the sect. This isn’t like the Catholic organization that thinks they are a mediator between the people and God. People have a direct relationship with God. God judges the sects, and He also deals with individuals. You are trying to force “sect” into the picture, but it doesn’t fit into it at all.

          • acontraryview

            “That is your contortion of the scripture.”

            It is your contortion of scripture which insists that Jesus was addressing men born without testes – an extremely rare occurrence – when he said that some eunuchs are born that way. You are certainly entitled to interpret scripture any way you care to. It is a hallmark of Christianity.

            “I stand by my comments.”

            Yet you have been unable to point out where I insulted you. Seems odd to stand by something you can’t prove.

            “It detracts from the issue, and you keep bringing it up.”

            You made the original claim.

            “Why would it be unequal and unfair?”

            Hmmmm….let’s see. Civil marriage is governed by law. The Constitution requires that all citizens are treated equally under the law. Allowing a citizen to marry the consenting, adult, non-closely related, person of his/her or choosing ONLY if that person of the opposite gender, while excluding citizens from marry the consenting, adult, non-closely related person of his/her choosing based solely upon gender, would not be equal treatment under the law. How do you see that as being equal?

            “Marriage requires men and women for it to be a marriage.”

            Not the civil contract of marriage. Two citizens of the same gender who enter into civil marriage are as legally married as two citizens of the opposite gender who enter into civil marriage.

            “It’s simply part of the requirement.”

            Actually, regarding civil marriage, which is governed by law, not religious belief, there was no legal requirement that couples be of opposite gender until 1973 when Maryland passed a law denying two citizens of the same gender the right to enter into civil marriage. The reason that law was passed, and subsequently similar laws in other states, is that marriage laws did NOT require that two citizens be of opposite gender. It was not until people of the same gender were denied the right to marry, and the judiciary ruled that laws governing marriage at the time did not specify gender as a determining factor, that states begin to pass laws which specified requirements regarding gender.

            “There’s nothing unequal about having definitions”

            Agreed. With that said, when definitions restrict the right of citizens, those restrictions must not violate protections provide by the Constitution regarding equal treatment under the law. When they do, it is incumbent upon the state to prove that such restrictions are based upon rational and compelling reasons. “It’s contrary to religious beliefs” is not a rational and compelling reason, on its own, to deny rights to citizens. Again, the US is not a Christian Theocracy. We do not determine what rights citizens are allowed, and what is justifiable to deny, based solely upon the Christian belief system.

            “and this is a fundamental part of the definition of marriage”

            You are certainly free to define marriage in any way you care to. Your personal view on the matter, however, is not a deciding factor in legal marriage.

            “God judges the sects, and He also deals with individuals.”

            Since you have stated that you are in a position to judge which sects are “false” and which are “true” are you saying that you ARE God?

            “You are trying to force “sect” into the picture, but it doesn’t fit into it at all.”

            I’m not forcing sects into the picture. It is Christians who have created sects – just as most religions have. Baptists believe that the Bible says that drinking alcohol is “evil”. So is any sect of Christianity which does not teach that “false”? Or is the Baptist sect false? Some sects of Christianity say it is “evil” to play cards or gamble. Are those sects “true” and all the others who do not view such acts as “evil” false? The Bible states that gluttony is a sin. Is any church that allows members who engage in gluttony and do not seek forgiveness a ‘false’ church? What about a church that marries a couple who are gluttons? Are they a “false” church just as churches that marry two people of same gender? What about a church that marries a couple who are having sexual relations? Also a “false” church?

            You are attempting to state that there is a singular view among Christians as to the totality of what is “evil” and what is not and therefore it can be determined which churches are “true” and which are “false”. Yet, the reality is that different sects of Christianity have different views as to what is “evil” and what is not. Therefore, in order to label a church as “false” one must choose which set of beliefs regarding “evil” they want to use as a criteria.

            So, I’ll ask again: The beliefs of which sect of Christianity should be used as a basis for determining the totality of what is “evil” and therefore determining which churches are “false” and which are “true”?

          • John_33

            It is your contortion of scripture which insists that Jesus was addressing men born without testes – an extremely rare occurrence – when he said that some eunuchs are born that way. You are certainly entitled to interpret scripture any way you care to. It is a hallmark of Christianity.

            Except I already proved that it was commonly discussed in ancient sources and the prophet Isaiah disproves your assertion that Eunuchs did not desire women or children. You have no basis for your claims.

            […] Allowing a citizen to marry the consenting, adult, non-closely related, person of his/her or choosing ONLY if that person of the opposite gender, while excluding citizens from marry the consenting, adult, non-closely related person of his/her choosing based solely upon gender, would not be equal treatment under the law. How do you see that as being equal?

            Because that’s what marriage is.

            Not the civil contract of marriage. Two citizens of the same gender who enter into civil marriage are as legally married as two citizens of the opposite gender who enter into civil marriage.

            No, civil marriage does not make it a marriage. It would be like changing the definition of “tree” to really mean “bridge.” It doesn’t make it so.

            Actually, regarding civil marriage, which is governed by law, not religious belief, there was no legal requirement that couples be of opposite gender until 1973

            The LGBT community was not “marrying” before 1973. You are trying too hard. You can even find the definition in very old dictionaries. Men and women are needed to make a marriage.

            Agreed. With that said, when definitions restrict the right of citizens, those restrictions must not violate protections provide by the Constitution regarding equal treatment under the law.

            Ah, so our definitions must bow before equality. So is “father” too restrictive since it refers to only men? Should we let women enter the definition of “father”? Is “police officer” too restrictive? Should we let regular citizens be called “police officers”?

            You are certainly free to define marriage in any way you care to. Your personal view on the matter, however, is not a deciding factor in legal marriage.

            Much like my other examples, words have meaning. You cannot just say, “well, that’s your personal view.” You can’t just change the definition because it doesn’t suit your tastes. Removing gender renders the term meaningless, and since it renders it meaningless, there was a reason gender requirements were there in the first place. You are the one trying to force your personal views on a natural, biological institution that was ordained thousands of years before. This type of social engineering is bound to fail.

            Since you have stated that you are in a position to judge which sects are “false” and which are “true” are you saying that YOU are God?

            No, I’m taking it from the Bible where God said it already. 🙂

            I’m not forcing sects into the picture. It is Christians who have created sects – just as most religions have. Baptists believe that the Bible says that drinking alcohol is “evil”. So is any sect of Christianity which does not teach that “false”?

            Were you a Catholic before? This is a very odd line of reasoning. The prophet Isaiah said “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

            This is not about sects. This is about churches that celebrate sin as something good and even holy. God will not tolerate it. Churches that do that are either swiftly warned or punished, or they are not God’s churches at all. Given that this church is in open rebellion and continues to rebel, they are not God’s church. God doesn’t let His children endorse evil like this.

          • acontraryview

            “Except I already proved that eunuchs with birth defects were commonly discussed in ancient sources”

            Providing a list individuals who you claim mention men born without testes is not proof that the incidence is not exceedingly rare.

            “Because that’s what marriage is.”

            Your views on what marriage is, does not answer the question of how it is not unequal treatment under the law.

            “No, redefining it as a civil marriage does not make it a marriage.” “It doesn’t make it so.”

            It does from a legal standpoint, which is the only issue.

            “The LGBT community was not “marrying” before 1973. ”

            True, because states would not allow them to. Then, the judiciary started to rule that marriage laws which existed at the time did not preclude two citizens from entering into civil marriage based solely upon gender. So, in order to codify treating some citizens as not equal under the law, states started changing their laws.

            “Ah, so our definitions must bow before equality.”

            If the definition is a legal one and violates the protections provided for equal treatment under the law then, yes, it is not enforceable.

            “You can even find the definition in very old dictionaries.”

            Irrelevant. The only definition that matters from a legal standpoint is the definition in the legal code.

            “Should we let women enter the definition of “father”? Is “police officer” too restrictive? Should we let regular citizens be called “police officers”?”

            Apples and oranges.

            “You can’t just change the definition because it doesn’t suit your personal tastes. ”

            Legal definitions are changed by actions of a legislative body or the judiciary. When it became clear that the legal definition of marriage – two consenting, non-closely related, unmarried, adults – did NOT exclude two citizens of the same gender from legally entering into marriage, states modified those laws based upon their “personal tastes”. I’m glad we agree that was not something they were able to do.

            “There was a reason gender requirements were there in the first place.”

            They weren’t there “in the first place”. The first instance of them being added was in 1973.

            “Marriage is a natural institution ordained by God.”

            Civil marriage is not determined by religion. It is governed by civil law.

            “You and others that support this change are fighting against nature”

            Since it is natural that a certain percent of the population is homosexual, and since it is natural that people are drawn to form partnerships, your statement is false.

            “and any fight against God and nature is bound to fail.”

            You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Reality, however, does not back up your statement.

            “This is not about sects. This is about churches that celebrate sin as something good and even holy”

            You have labeled one sect as “false’, so apparently it is about sects. Yet, again, different sects have different views on what is sinful. I’ll pose these questions to you again, and perhaps you will actually answer:

            Baptists believe that the Bible says that drinking alcohol is “evil”. So is any sect of Christianity which does not teach that “false”? Or is the Baptist sect false? Some sects of Christianity say it is “evil” to play cards or gamble. Are those sects “true” and all the others who do not view such acts as “evil” false? The Bible states that gluttony is a sin. Is any church that allows members who engage in gluttony and do not seek forgiveness a ‘false’ church? What about a church that marries a couple who are gluttons? Are they a “false” church just as churches that marry two people of same gender? What about a church that marries a couple who are having sexual relations? Also a “false” church?

            As I have stated before: You are attempting to state that there is a singular view among Christians as to the totality of what is “evil” and what is not and therefore it can be determined which churches are “true” and which are “false”. Yet, the reality is that different sects of Christianity have different views as to what is “evil” and what is not. Therefore, in order to label a church as “false” one must choose which set of beliefs regarding “evil” they want to use as a criteria.

            So, I’ll ask again: The beliefs of which sect of Christianity should be used as a basis for determining the totality of what is “evil” and therefore determining which churches are “false” and which are “true”?

          • John_33

            Providing a list individuals who you claim mention men born without testes is not proof that the incidence is not exceedingly rare.

            It shows that they classified them as eunuchs. You can continue to dispute this, but there’s no basis for your claims. We know according to the Bible that eunuchs did indeed desire children and despaired for not having them, but God told them that He had something better. Marriage is not for them.

            Your views on what marriage is, does not answer the question of how it is not unequal treatment under the law.

            This is not about my views. This is about natural law. There’s nothing unequal about nature.

            If the definition is a legal one and violates the protections provided for equal treatment under the law then, yes, it is not enforceable.

            So definitions must be warped to whatever the contemporary view of equality is? So is the word “father” or “mother” discriminatory? How about the gender pronouns “he” or “she”? LGBT activists think so.

            Apples and oranges.

            Ah, but it’s whatever the legal code says. Did you not know that women are now being called fathers because of gay “marriage”? This is what it has come to. Words are being assaulted simply because they recognition gender distinctions.

            Legal definitions are changed by actions of a legislative body or the judiciary. When it became clear that the legal definition of marriage – two consenting, non-closely related, unmarried, adults – did NOT exclude two citizens of the same gender from legally entering into marriage, states modified those laws based upon their “personal tastes”. I’m glad we agree that was not something they were able to do.

            The legal definition of marriage wasn’t two consenting, non-closely related, unmarried, adults before Obergefell v. Hodges.

            They weren’t there “in the first place”. The first instance of them being added was in 1973.

            Of course gender requirements were there. As you said, the states wouldn’t let the LGBT community marry. Marriage was always known to be between men and women. The dictionary supported it and the laws enforced it. Sodomy laws were in place at the time.

            Since it is natural that a certain percent of the population is homosexual, and since it is natural that people are drawn to form partnerships, your statement is false.

            I accept that it is relatively common, but it is not natural.

            You have labeled one sect as “false’, so apparently it is about sects. Yet, again, different sects have different views on what is sinful. I’ll pose these questions to you again, and perhaps you will actually answer

            I said that the church false. You are the one that brought up sects. If the entire sect supports same-sex “marriage”, then it’s false too. Sin cannot be tolerated by God, nor does He let His church revel in it. We have discussed this long enough. I don’t think anything new is being added. I will leave it here.

          • acontraryview

            “It shows that they classified them as eunuchs. You can continue to dispute this, but there’s no basis for your claims.”

            I never disputed that. Most certainly there is a tiny, tiny percentage of males who are born without testes and they would have been referred to as eunuchs in that time.

            “but God told them that He had something better.”

            Please cite where God told them that.

            “Marriage is not for them.”

            So marriage is for “some” and not others. Glad we agree.

            “This is about natural law.”

            Since civil marriage is governed by civil law, this is not about “natural law”.

            “So definitions must be warped to whatever the contemporary view of equality is?”

            You mean like when marriage laws defined marriage as only being between two people of the same race and then that definition of marriage was changed? Or do you mean like when a married woman was defined as the property of her husband and then that definition was changed? Or do you mean like when black people were defined as not counting as a whole person regarding representation, and then that definition was changed? If so, then, yes, definitions change.

            “Of course gender requirements were there.”

            Clearly not. If they had been, there would have been no reason to pass laws that stated gender requirements, would there?

            “As you said, the states wouldn’t let the LGBT community marry.”

            Correct. When that denial was challenged in court, the courts ruled that existing marriage laws did not have gender requirements. That is why states began passing laws which laws which specified that opposite gender was a requirement. If was already a requirement, why would the states have put subsequent laws into place?

            “Marriage was always known to be between men and women.”

            In most cases that is true. But not all.

            “I accept that it is relatively common, but it is not natural.”

            Natural: “existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.”

            Since sexuality is not “made or caused by humankind” it is indeed natural.

            “I said that the church is false. You are the one that brought up sects.”

            You said: “Any sect that celebrates something and calls it good when the Bible teaches it to be evil (especially when it merits the death penalty) is a false church.”

            “I don’t think anything new is being added.”

            Agreed, since you have unwilling to answer basic questions about your view. So, i’ll ask once again, and perhaps you will add something new this time instead of ducking the questions:

            Baptists believe that the Bible says that drinking alcohol is “evil”. So is any sect of Christianity or church which does not teach that “false”? Or is the Baptist sect/church false? Some sects/churches of Christianity say it is “evil” to play cards or gamble. Are those sects/churches “true” and all the others who do not view such acts as “evil” false? The Bible states that gluttony is a sin. Is any church that allows members who engage in gluttony and do not seek forgiveness a ‘false’ church? What about a church that marries a couple who are gluttons? Are they a “false” church just as churches that marry two people of same gender? What about a church that marries a couple who are having sexual relations? Also a “false” church?

          • PietjePuk

            Please continue to read upto verse 12….

          • Ruth Davis

            When JEHOVAH himself married Adam and Eve .

          • acontraryview

            Where in the Bible does it mention that Adam and Eve got married, Ruth?

          • Ruth Davis

            Read it for yourself . Go to the book of Genesis.

          • acontraryview

            It’s your claim, Ruth. If you can back it up, then do so. If you can’t, then you can’t.

          • Ruth Davis

            Roman 1 – 26 – 32 what more proof do you need ?

          • acontraryview

            Nothing in there about “JEHOVAH himself married Adam and Eve”. Got anything else?

          • PietjePuk

            There are several same sex bonds in the bible, one of which the vows are used for approx. 50% of all weddings.

            The covenant between jonathan and david have all characteristics of a marriage, even in the choice of words in the bible.

          • John_33

            Far from it. David and Jonathan loved each other as godly brothers in the Lord rather than in any sexual way. 1 Samuel 18:1 says that Jonathan loved David as his own soul (like the Bible commands us to). Are you trying to tell us that Jonathan infatuated with himself? The mere suggestion is perverse. Look at it from a common sense perspective. How were they gay if they were both married to women? David even got into trouble by committing adultery with Bathsheba. No, they were godly individuals who loved each other purely.

          • PietjePuk

            You really think so?

            1 samuel 18: And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

            2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father’s house.

            3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.

            4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.

            The arguments regarding verse 1, 3 and 4 are quite self explaining.

            Now lets look at verse 2 and compare it with Genesis 2:24

            24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mothers house, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh

            Exactly the same wording. This is how it was called in those days. If you got married, the man would leave the house of his father to live with his wive (or husband in this case). We are seeing a marriage alike bonding here.

            That is confirmed later by Saul in verse 21 (after Saul has offered Merab his daughter to David as well):

            21 And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the twain.

            The above is the literal translation of the original text. Modern translations have added “one in the” before “in the twain” because the translators were to uncomfortable with the original. A typical example of prejudice of translators.

            What does it say? David is married twice to a child of Saul.

            And then move to 1 Samuel 20:

            30 Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother’s nakedness?

            We know from leviticus 18 already that nakedness refers to sexual relationships.
            What saul is saying is that Jonathan is parading himself publicly in a way that is like that of a woman who is searching for a male lover. He doesn’t compare Jonathans nakedness with a man’s nakedness but with the shame of a woman. Jonathan was not only called a woman by Saul, but also a whore, the maximum insult he could make.

            And then we come to verse 20:41-42:
            And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of the place toward the south, and fell on his face on the ground, and bowed himself three times, and they kissed one another, and wept one another, until David EXCEEDED.

            The original hebrew word is GADAL, which means erection.

            And then finally II Samuel 1:26
            I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan, very pleasant hast thou been unto me, thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of woman.

            First of all, there was not such a thing as platonic love of woman at that time. Basically you can read this as “your love for me was wonderful, and better than the sex with woman”.

            The above doesn’t mean that David was 100% homosexual. It was a typical male-male relationship as we also have seen in Rome. The men having sex with each other, besides having a normal marriage for creating a linage…

            David and Jonathan were bi-sexual lovers.

          • John_33

            Thank you for the verses, but they disprove your position.

            Look at verse 2: it says that Saul took David to his home (Saul was king and David was his bodyguard!). Remember, David played for Saul before to drive out the evil spirits. If this was a reference to Genesis 2:24, then wouldn’t it say that Jonathan took David to his home? Unless Saul is marrying David, it doesn’t make sense.

            But now look at verse 17: Saul wanted to destroy David by offering him in marriage. What does David say in response? He said that he didn’t want to be the son in law to the king because it was too great for him! If David “married” Jonathan, then why would he say that it was a great thing to be a son in law to the king? Because he wasn’t!

            And as for 1 Samuel 20, even if you accept that Saul accused Jonathan of an illicit relationship (which is not evident in the original Hebrew), who says that Saul is right in his accusation? He was answering Jonathan in a fit of rage because of his desire to kill David. He was so crazed that he even threw his javelin at his own son to kill him for daring to ask what David was guilty of. It’s hardly evidence to substantiate an illicit relationship.

            The original hebrew word is GADAL, which means erection.

            No, no, no, no! It simply means “great.” David was overcome with emotion but not sexually! Look at these other places where Gadal is used. Words in bold are gadal.

            God speaking: “And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:” ~ Gen 12:2

            Before the child was even weaned! “And the child grew, and was weaned: and Abraham made a great feast the same day that Isaac was weaned.” ~ Gen 21:8

            What did God do to Joshua? “On that day the LORD magnified Joshua in the sight of all Israel; and they feared him, as they feared Moses, all the days of his life.” Joshua 4:14

            “Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God: for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears.” ~ 2 Samuel 7:22

            “So king Solomon exceeded all the kings of the earth for riches and for wisdom.” 1 Kings 10:23

            As you can see, the word Gadal does NOT mean what you think it does!

            Even in II Samuel 1:26, what David is saying is that the love he felt by his spiritual brother in the Lord surpassed anything he experienced with women (remember, they loved each other as themselves – a Biblical commandment!). There was nothing sexual in their conduct, their words, or their actions.

          • PietjePuk

            Thank you for your response, but I must say I find it far from convincing.
            The fact that the writer put that sentence in just after the covenant means the two are interconnected. If it was because saul needed a body guard it could have been anywhere in the text.Not in between the verses where first the love is described, and the covenant being made between the two.
            Regarding verse 17, it was custom to pay a dowry for a wife, not for a man. David couldn’t afford a dowry. That is the back ground of verse 17. That is why Saul says that 100 foreskins is sufficient.
            If paul takes David into his house, making him leave his father’s house as per genesis, and he says that David is his son in law in the twice, than it is pretty clear that his accusation of jonathan having an “illicit” relationship is spot on and makes everything perfect sense. Without the story is inconsistent.
            I take back that GADAL means one on one an erection. It means become large indeed.
            So David kissed Jonathan and he became large. Still has the same meaning. What you come up with is to far away from the direct text.
            If it would have been brotherly love, it the “surpassing the love of women” part would have been missing. Therefore it can only mean one thing.
            And love your neighbor as you love yourself was a quote from jesus in the NT. That was still at least 1000 years away, even for the writer of the text.

          • PietjePuk

            I wanted to share something with you.

            Reading Leviticus 15 I come across the following:

            19“‘When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.

            20 “‘Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. 21 Anyone who touches her bed will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. 22 Anyone who touches anything she sits on will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. 23 Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, they will be unclean till evening.

            24 “‘If a man has sexual relations with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days; any bed he lies on will be unclean.

            This is quite different from the same passages in leviticus 18 (sentence follows from verse 29 which means expulsion from the people of Israel), or Leviticus 20 (sentence is expulsion again). Doesn’t this mean that the “sin” of having sex with a man during her period is much bigger under Leviticus 18 and 20 because of the context within this “sin” happens within these chapters? that it itself already points to that leviticus 18 and 20 is not just some list of “sins”. They are only sins within the context of Lev 18 and 20. And as the punishment of Lev 18 can be found in verse 29, which is the same as Lev 20 first verses, which also refers to Molek, I think it is pretty obvious that we are talking about worshipping of other gods.

            What is your opinion?

          • John_33

            No, and here is why. It is indeed a sin to have relations during a period. I accept that, but it isn’t given the death penalty as homosexual practice was. Now, if you want to argue that homosexuality is only a sin in context of temple rituals with Molech, then how do you interpret all of the other sins listed in Leviticus 20? For example, Leviticus 18:23 and Leviticus 20:15 forbids bestiality. Is bestiality only wrong when done in temple rituals? Or is it always a sin? It’s always a sin, whether in ritual or not, and therefore it must be the same with homosexual practice.

          • PietjePuk

            Apologies, I am afraid I have been unclear.
            If you read leviticus 15, having relations during a period is not a sin, only a matter or ritual uncleanliness. Both man and woman are clean again after seven days. That is all. It is not even called a sin. Only an uncleanliness, just as the woman’s period itself makes a woman unclean already. And having a monthly period obviously can not be a sin in itself. That would be ridiculous. After seven days you are supposed to bring two doves to the temple to become clean again.
            The treatment in Levicus 18 and 20 is of a total different order, you are to be banished from your people if you have had relations during a period. The difference couldn’t be bigger. That can only mean there is a contextual difference in Leviticus 18 and 20. And as the contextual difference is apparently so substantial, it might be that Leviticus 18 and 20 don’t have meaning unless we understand this difference. Even for bestiality….

          • John_33

            Ah, now I understand. No, there’s no difference. Here’s how: in Leviticus 18, God said that homosexual practice was a sin and that He was destroying the Canaanites for a number of sins, including for homosexual practice (see verses 24-30 in conjunction with verse 22). God also warned Israel that if they willfully disobeyed and practiced any of these commandments that the land would spew them out just as it did the Canaanites. In Leviticus 20:13, God applies the death penalty for it and follows it with the same warning. In other words, the punishment was the same in both Leviticus 18 and 20: Death, expulsion, and sin were all three present. There is no distinction between the two.

            In Leviticus 15, the chapter focuses solely on uncleanness rather than sin. I agree, there’s no sin there, but Leviticus 20 is different since it’s only discussing sin. Therefore, the distinction between Leviticus 15 and 20 is that a couple that unknowingly had relations during a period was unclean. They had to both follow the necessary sacrifices to become clean again. But if the two willfully disobeyed and had relations during that time with impunity, then they were cut off (physically and spiritually separated) from the people. They could repent and bring the necessary sacrifices, but unless they did, they were guilty.

          • PietjePuk

            Really? So you have sex with your wife during her period, and under lev 15 it is sufficient to offer two doves as a sin offer and all is fine, and under lev 18&20 you are kicked out of the land? That on its own make sense to you? Because it doesnt for me…

          • John_33

            It’s the same difference as accidentally killing your neighbor or lying in wait to murder him. Is there a difference? Yes, a rather big one, actually.

          • John_33

            In reply to your additional text:

            The sin with Molech was giving their children (the fruit of the womb) to burn in the fire, and it was a practice that the Canaanites did. That’s why it’s included there.

            I already explained the distinction between Leviticus 15 with 18. The difference between willful sin and an accident is huge, and that is why the Bible treats it differently. Homosexuality doesn’t change whether it’s committed by two loving and caring, committing individuals or between one hundred individuals. Nowhere does the Bible say that a sin repeated many times with a loving, committed person is somehow righteous. Don’t try to change what the Bible says to fit your views. Let the Bible change you.

          • Kivaari

            Wrong.

          • acontraryview

            Well that was insightful.

            What are you referring to as being wrong?

          • Kivaari

            Go back to your original comments and it is simply wrong. Wierdoes remain wierdoes. Is that simple enough?

          • acontraryview

            “Go back to your original comments and it is simply wrong.”

            Repeating your earlier assertion doesn’t answer my question, so I’ll ask again: What are you referring to as being wrong?

    • PietjePuk

      You believe in a human construct from 1300 after christ. Homosexuality has never been a sin.

      Jesus gave us two commandments: love god and love your neighbor as yourself. These two commandments are the foundation of all other laws.

      Homosexuality is not in contravention of these two commandments and therefore is not a sin.

      To get to the meaning of Leviticus and Romans there must be something else in play. And that can be found in the earlier verses preceding the “clobber passages”. Leviticus and Romans are about tempel prostitution for the worshipping of other gods. That is clearly in contravention with the two founding commandments.

      No self respecting theological scholar still believes that S&G was about homosexuality (otherwise heterosexuality would be equally condemned by Judges 19&20 which is obviously ridiculous, and no reference in the bible to S&G includes homosexuality). And the other passages are primarily mistranslations. References are available if you are interested.

      This is what god has to say about homosexuality:

      Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say,
      “The Lord will surely separate me from his people”;
      and let not the eunuch say,
      “Behold, I am a dry tree.”
      For thus says the Lord:
      “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
      who choose the things that please me
      and hold fast my covenant,
      I will give in my house and within my walls
      a monument and a name
      better than sons and daughters;
      I will give them an everlasting name
      that shall not be cut off.

      And Matthew 19 is often quoted incomplete (only verse 4) while the following is left out.
      11 But He said to them, “Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are some eunuchs who have been so from birth, there are some eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are some eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

      (there are three types of eunuchs – natural/born eunuchs which we would translate in current day as homosexuals, man made eunuchs which equals current day translation of a castrate, and man that chose to be eunuch for the kingdom of heaven (priests))

      The fact that you call yourself mom in your avatar suggests you are in a relationship. Therefore you should know better than your remark about homosexual relationships suggest. Gay people want to get married because they love each other. You can’t live together and share life based on “temporary sexual feelings” only. There are plenty of gay couples that are together for five, ten, twenty and fifty years. You can’t love somebody as a partner if you are not attracted to that person.

      You are very much mistaken…

      Homosexuality is about love, love is the fulfillment of the law…

      • John_33

        You are deeply mistaken since you don’t know the Word of God. Homosexuality is indeed a sin since it breaks the 2 greatest commandments. Love for God means that you will obey all of His commandments as Jesus said in John 14:21-23. That includes His commandments on homosexuality.

        Now let’s examine the words in Leviticus. You have a serious problem trying to excuse homosexuality by trying to claim that it’s referring to temple prostitution. Let me ask the question: if Leviticus 18:22 is referring to temple prostitution, then what about verse 23 that prohibits bestiality? Is that only forbidden when performing those acts in temple rituals? Absolutely not. They are all forbidden all the time. In fact, let me demonstrate it. In Leviticus 20:13, the Law prescribes the death penalty to homosexual acts, but there is no reference to temples or idolatry anywhere near verse 13. There’s only one way to interpret it, and that’s to read what it plainly says.

        A eunuch is simply a castrated male. When Jesus talked about those who were born eunuchs, He meant those who had birth defects. That simply refers to birth defects. The Romans actually classified eunuchs according to their birth defects. They had Spado, Thlibiae, and Thlasiae referred to those who were eunuchs who were eunuchs because they born with defects.

        I want to be clear that I’m not waving my finger in the face of the LGBT community as if I’m better than them, but the Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin. Rather than being a legitimate form of love, it is an aberration from what God intended. God didn’t reject homosexuality because He wanted to reject love from humanity. He rejected it because He knew the hurt and pain that it brings. That doesn’t mean that God leaves us on our own to struggle. Just as Jesus walked the earth and healed people and helped them through their struggles, He continues to help us today with our struggles, including with sexual desires. What we are called to do is follow God and obey His commandments. Love does not ignore God’s commandments. Love holds them up, and this is how honor the first commandment by loving God with all of our heart, soul, and mind:

        “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. 4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.” ~ 1 John 5:2-4

        • PietjePuk

          John 14: 21-23 says that you have to the commandments given to us by Jesus. And there are exactly two of those. And those two commandments make it clear that homosexuality is not a sin. Leviticus discusses ritual purity and cleanliness. Leviticus 18 is all about temple prostitution and baal worshipping. The context is defined in verses 1 to 6. Do not follow the practices of Canaan. The practice of Canaan was baal worshipping, including sex orchies in temples.

          Read the verse preceding the famous gay verse: verse 21:

          21 You shall not let any of your children be offered through the fire to Molek, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord.

          Molec and baal are the two opposing gods, where baal is annually killed by molek and baal needs to be resurrected by fertility rituals (=sex orchies in temples, temple prostitution, etc). Clearly this points to a baal worshipping context.

          And read 19:
          19 Also you shall not approach a woman to have relations as long as she is in her menstrual uncleanness.

          This clearly points to ritual purity and cleanliness (the overal theme of Leviticus).

          The same you can read also in Leviticus 15, but there a man that has sex with a women is unclean for 7 days and then all is fine again. While leviticus 18: 29 says something totally different:

          29 For whoever shall commit any of these abominations, those persons who commit them shall be cut off from among their people. 30 Therefore you shall keep My ordinances, that you do not commit any one of these abominable customs which were committed before you, so that you do not defile yourselves by them: I am the Lord your God.

          Clearly there is a difference between the one in Leviticus 15 and the one in Leviticus 18.

          Now compare Leviticus 18:29 with leviticus 20

          2 Again, you shall say to the children of Israel: Whoever from the children of Israel or from the foreigners who sojourn in Israel who gives any of his children to Molek, he shall surely be put to death. The people of the land shall stone him. 3 I will set My face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given some of his descendants to Molek to defile My sanctuary and to defile My holy name.

          See the parallel with casting out of people that worship Molek and 18:29?

          LEviticus 20:2 makes it very clear that the rest of the chapter is again within the context of temple prostitution.

          About Eunuchs:

          Homosexual eunuchs weren’t always castrated. In the Book of Acts it talks about an Ethiopian Eunuch under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, going into the Temple in Jerusalem to worship (Acts 8:26-27). But in (Deuteronomy 23:1) it says that a castrated male is not to enter the congregation of the LORD. The Book of Acts, chapter (8:26-27) is a good reference of a Eunuch that was not castrated.

          According to scripture (matthew 19 v12) there are three types of eunuchs: born eunuchs, man made eunuchs and eunuchs that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven.

          Your current day dictionary translation of eunuch only covers the second “type”: man made eunuch. Scripture itself already makes it clear that not all eunuchs are actually castrated man, see the last category as this refers to celibate priests. Ask yourself, why would jesus distinguish between born eunuchs and man made eunuchs if they where both castrates? The answer can be found in Roman law and Talmud, bot documents jesus would have been familiar with (Talmud was part of jesus his religion).

          Born eunuchs is a category for man that did not have any attraction for women. Proof can be found in both the Talmud as in Roman law of that time. (their context, or their dictionary if you like).

          Roman Law:

          There was a kind of “lemon law” for slaves in the Roman empire — just as in modern times used car dealers may be prohibited from concealing major flaws in cars, Roman slave dealers were prohibited from concealing serious flaws in slaves that they offered for sale. The purpose of the rulings in Book 21 Title 1 of the Digest was to determine what kinds of flaws would give rise to the rescission of a purchase contract if the seller had not reported them before the sale.

          Minor flaws, such as long-ago healed wounds or stuttering speech, were called defects and did not require disclosure. Relevant flaws, such as blindness or tuberculosis, were called diseases. The jurist Sabinus defined disease in this context as “an unnatural physical condition whereby the usefulness of the body is impaired for the purposes for which nature endowed us with bodily health.”

          Ulpian declares that “if there be any defect or disease which impairs the usefulness and serviceability of the slave, that is a ground for rescission; we must, however, bear in mind that a very minor flaw will not lead to his being held defective or diseased. Thus a slight fever, or an old recurrent fever which can now be ignored, or a trivial wound, will entail no liability if it be not declared; such things can be treated as beneath notice.”

          Vivian says “that we should still regard as healthy those with minor mental defects,” otherwise the health of a slave could be denied “without limit, for instance, because he is frivolous, superstitious, quick-tempered, obstinate or has some other flaw of mind.”

          Ulpian ultimately stipulates that “generally, the rule which we appear to observe is that the expression ‘defect and disease’ applies only to the body … All in all, if the defect be one of the mind alone, there will be no rescission, unless the vendor has stated that such defect does not exist when, in fact, it does … if the defect is wholly physical or a combination of the physical and nonphysical, there is scope for rescission.”

          Paulus says (D 21.1.5): “Just as there is a distinction between those defects which the Greeks describe as a malignancy, and those they categorize as misfortunes, maladies, or weaknesses, so there is a distinction between such [lesser] defects and that form of disease whereby the usability of a slave is reduced.”

          So we see, the principle is that a slave is diseased for the purposes of the law if he has a bodily flaw which diminishes his usability, which for a slave means his ability to perform certain functions that may be of value to his owner.

          Now we come to the point that interests us today. The law finds that eunuchs did not have an incapacitating bodily flaw.

          Ulpian says (D 21.1.6.2): “To me it appears the better view that a eunuch is not diseased or defective, but healthy, just like a man who has one testicle, who is also able to procreate.”

          Therefore Ulpian is saying that the usefulness, or capability, of a eunuch is not destroyed by his being a eunuch: he is able to procreate. How can this be, we ask today? Eunuchs, as we all know, are made unable to procreate by their emasculation!

          Paulus (D 21.1.7) clarifies: “If, on the other hand, someone is a eunuch in such a way that he is missing a necessary part of his body, even internally, then he is diseased.”

          So the reproductive ability of the unqualified form of eunuch is not destroyed because he is not missing any necessary parts of his body. If it were impossible for a eunuch to produce a child because of a bodily characteristic, even a naturally-occurring one like an anatomical birth defect, then that would clearly constitute a disease under this section. But Ulpian says a eunuch is not diseased, but healthy. Apparently, eunuch status must be an issue of the mind, featuring no disabling anatomical defect and therefore having no legally relevant consequences. By the way, I have never seen this section of the Digest cited in any article or book about eunuchs. I found it by looking up spado in a concordance to the Corpus Juris Civilis.

          To recap, the distinction for Ulpian and Paulus is between a eunuch whose capability to procreate is destroyed because he is missing necessary parts of his body, and an anatomically whole eunuch for whom procreation may be psychologically difficult, but is biologically unimpeded.

          Returning to Ulpian’s other statements about the various types of eunuchs, we recall eunuchs by nature, crushed and pounded eunuchs, and castrated eunuchs. Out of these categories, the crushed, pounded and castrated lack necessary parts of their body and are physically incapable of procreation. There is only one category left for the anatomically whole eunuchs: they are the “natural eunuchs.”

          In D 50.16.128 natural eunuchs are mentioned first before man-made eunuchs, and in D 21.1.6.2 whole eunuchs are mentioned before anatomically deprived eunuchs. Under Roman law, not only is it very important whether a eunuch is mutilated or anatomically whole, but the natural, whole eunuch is the true eunuch.

          And from the Talmud:

          Natural Eunuchs in the Talmud: Never Fit, But Possibly Curable

          Like the Roman law, the Talmud also distinguished with clear legal consequences between natural and man-made eunuchs. In Yebamoth, Chapter 8 (folio 79b), Rabbi Joshua posed a question about a contradiction he had encountered in the law.

          According to the Bible (Deuteronomy 25:5-10), when a man dies childless, it is his brother’s responsibility to marry the widow and engender a child in his brother’s name. Any man who refuses to give his deceased brother a child in this way is disgraced and must submit to a humiliating public ceremony called “chalitsah” in which the widow removes one of his shoes and spits in his face. From then on the reluctant brother’s family is known as “the house of him who had his shoe loosed” [beit chalu’ hanna’al].

          The legal problem puzzling Rabbi Joshua was this: “I have heard that a eunuch submits to chalitsah and that chalitsah is arranged for his wife, and also that a eunuch does not submit to chalitsah and that no chalitsah is arranged for his wife, and I am unable to explain this.” The text continues with two conflicting explanations by the Tannaim.

          Rabbi Akibah said: “I will explain it: A man-made eunuch submits to chalitsah and chalitsah is also arranged for his wife, because there was a time when he was in a state of fitness. A eunuch-by-nature neither submits to chalitsah nor is chalitsah arranged for his wife, since there never was a time when he was fit.”

          The opposing view was given by Rabbi Eliezer, who said: “Not so, but a eunuch-by-nature submits to chalitsah and chalitsah is also arranged for his wife, because he may be cured. A man-made eunuch neither submits to chalitsah nor is chalitsah arranged for his wife, since he cannot be cured.”

          The text goes on: “Rabbi Joshua ben Bathyra testified concerning Ben Megosath, who was a man-made eunuch living in Jerusalem, that his wife was allowed to be married by the levir, thus confirming the opinion of Rabbi Akibah. The eunuch neither submits to chalitsah nor contracts the levirate marriage …”

          In the Talmud, as in Roman law, the distinction between natural eunuchs and man-made eunuchs was substantive.

          God made humans in his own image. That included male and female, black and white, gay and straight. The only hurt and pain gay people encounter is because of the prejudice and bigotry of people.

    • Mr. G.

      Same-sex marriage is very different from adultery for one significant reason – no one is injured by same-sex marriage / adultery is inherently injurious to the spouse of the adulterer.

      • Kivaari

        Many have been harmed by the homosexual life style.

        • Mr. G.

          There is no such thing as “the homosexual life style”. They’re folks just like me. They get up, they go to work, they hang out with friends. Nothing in their “life style” is inherently harmful.

          • Kivaari

            Funny stuff. I guess the bath house sex scene is normal behavior. If you haven’t noticed the promiscuity found in the gay community is not normal. The San Francisco and Greenwich life is not normal, except in the gay community. I wonder how AIDS became such an issue, primarily in the gay crowd. It effected some heterosexual people that had sex with bisexual men and hookers. There is a reason the odd people practicing that lifestyle, including parading down the street on gay pride days showing off 3 foot phallic symbols and wearing ugly costumes that show their love of S&M practices. No one every gets harmed. Seriously, your normal lifestyle has some real issues.

        • Mr. G.

          Better yet – name one aspect of this so-called “homosexual lifestyle” that’s harmful to others. Go for it. I don’t think you can.

          • Kivaari

            I just did. HIV-AIDS became a serious issue because of how it spread throughout the gay community. Some spill over when gay “bisexual” people spread it to the heterosexual community. The S&M aspect is disgusting regardless of where it is done. Odd people, performing odd sex, and having large communities where perversion is ordinary and accepted. Well, just look at a gay pride parade and tell me that is normal. I guess if you like it, it is your normal. Like a starving kid in Africa, it is his normal to be hungry. He needs help as he has no means to solve his problem. Gays however choose to be odd, very odd. I liked it when the closet door was locked.

          • Mr. G.

            High risk behaviors are common in people who’ve experienced systematic abuse – regardless of sexual orientation. When we stop that systematic abuse, I expect their risk-taking behaviors to look more like people who have not been subjected to it.

            One way to mock people who disapprove of you is caricature. We see a lot of that in gay pride parades. i.e. you’re being laughed at for priggery and you don’t even realize it.

  • violetteal

    Essentially there is a schism within the Anglican Church.

    • OtherTim

      More of a hissy fit, really. Bishop Curry is right to shrug it off.

  • Ablemom

    This apostate “bishop” acknowledges Christ’s words through St. Paul saying “All who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female, for all are one in Christ,” St. Paul was right, and Christ IS always eternally right, because as one in Christ, male and female are putting on what it is to be Christlike, and therefore to strive not to sin, but to love and forgive as Christ did. But it certainly is not Christlike to intend then to sin again and again – and that is precisely why gay-marriage should not be tolerated in a Christian church. For example – a heterosexual woman, has children with a faithful husband – but for her own politically ambitious reasons decides she wants to divorce her husband and follow her “feelings” to be a lesbian in partnership with a lesbian woman. That is a fairly accurate description of a prominent provincial premier in Canada. And she has for obvious reasons lost the political support of many heterosexual voters of many varied religious and non-religious voters whose desire is to demonstrate and rally to show more honourable life-long marriage commitments in raising and teaching their own children, what they know and believe about what love really is – as opposed to mere political ambitions and temporary feelings. Perhaps more accurate if I say WHO Love really is.

    • PietjePuk

      You believe in a human construct. Homosexuality has never been a sin.

      Jesus gave us two commandments: love god and love your neighbor as yourself. These two commandments are the foundation of all other laws.

      Homosexuality is not in contravention of these two commandments and therefore is not a sin.

      To get to the meaning of Leviticus and Romans there must be something else in play. And that can be found in the earlier verses preceding the “clobber passages”. Leviticus and Romans are about tempel prostitution for the worshipping of other gods. That is clearly in contravention with the two founding commandments.

      No self respecting theological scholar still believes that S&G was about homosexuality (otherwise heterosexuality would be equally condemned by Judges 19&20 which is obviously ridiculous, and no reference in the bible to S&G includes homosexuality). And the other passages are primarily mistranslations. References are available if you are interested.

      This is what god has to say about homosexuality:

      Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say,
      “The Lord will surely separate me from his people”;
      and let not the eunuch say,
      “Behold, I am a dry tree.”
      For thus says the Lord:
      “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
      who choose the things that please me
      and hold fast my covenant,
      I will give in my house and within my walls
      a monument and a name
      better than sons and daughters;
      I will give them an everlasting name
      that shall not be cut off.

      And Matthew 19 is often quoted incomplete (only verse 4) while the following is left out.
      11 But He said to them, “Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are some eunuchs who have been so from birth, there are some eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are some eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

      (there are three types of eunuchs – natural/born eunuchs which we would translate in current day as homosexuals, man made eunuchs which equals current day translation of a castrate, and man that chose to be eunuch for the kingdom of heaven (priests))

      The fact that you call yourself mom in your avatar suggests you are in a relationship. Therefore you should know better than your remark about homosexual relationships suggest. Gay people want to get married because they love each other. You can’t live together and share life based on “temporary sexual feelings” only. There are plenty of gay couples that are together for five, ten, twenty and fifty years. You can’t love somebody as a partner if you are not attracted to that person.

      You are very much mistaken…

      Homosexuality is about love, love is the fulfillment of the law…

  • Josey

    If the standard isn’t God’s word pertaining to all things in a Christian’s life then they walk after the flesh and whatever seems right to them, there is no end to the evil they will come up with. God’s word is Holy and True and the only standard one can undoubtedly be assured of.

    Proverbs 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

  • acontraryview

    Ahhhh….freedom of religion. Gotta love the USA, huh?

  • The Rev. Rilla Holmes

    So many mistakes above.

    +Gene Robinson was not appointed to his office as Bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire. He was ELECTED by the people of that diocese. That election and all the others that came to General Convention that year were ratified as our polity required.

    The primates requested that we refrain from representing the Communion by not participating in doctrinal conversation or by forming official partnerships with other denominations or religions for the next three years.

    The very same request was made of the African Churches that have tried to take schismatic congregations under their authority in direct violation of all Anglican rules of governance. Interestingly, this has gotten no press at all.

    Perhaps you could start with a more accurate source of information and do more thorough fact checking for future stories.

  • http://oshma.net/wordpress MO

    There are a number of factual errors in this article:

    –There is no such thing as an “archdiocese” in the Episcopal (not Episcopalian) Church.

    –No Episcopal bishop is “appointed.” Bishop Robinson was _elected_ and his election was ratified by a majority of the standing committees of other dioceses of the Episcopal Church.

    –In the same sentence, “the group” is not defined. Presumably Ms. Clark means “General Convention.”

    If Ms. Clark wants to be a real journalist someday, perhaps she should take a class in fact checking.

    On the other hand, I wouldn’t expect the Episcopal Church to receive a fair treatment at the hands of anyone in this allegedly Christian news operation.

    • Bill Cater

      Well said, Mo!

  • Itay S

    THIS is the time to express change in the community because of a better belief in humanity and the sexuality of manhood. The Lord doesn’t make mistakes and therefore I must be the way I was meant to be. The struggle of being myself, my true self vs. what society taught me is to tiring. Additionally, the Church/Mosque/Synagogue must accept that the knowledge that science provides: a portion of all mammals are same sex attracted to the point of dedication. IF THAT BE FACT, then the Church/Mosque/Synagogue MUST accept LGBTQI as part of the mix of humanity that the USA has always been.

  • drdanfee

    After quite a bit – years really – of reading, asking questions, investigating further, reading and re-reading the significant body of human science published in peer reviewed journals ….. and not least, actually getting to know quite a variety of people with variant sexual orientations in a wide range of life situations …. I have come to agree with the emerging consensus, as follows: (1) no society or civilization prior to 1859, had anything like a contemporary human sciences notion of how statistically minority sexual orientation variances reliably occur in sufficiently large animal (over 1,000 documented animal species) and large human populations. (2) While we still yet do not understand all the complex causes of this human variance, the human science to date is so clear we ignore it at our own peril, i.e., this LGBT variance is within ‘normal ranges’ for human personality and human life cycle development. (3) A reliable accumulation of human science hypothesis testing demonstrates that LGBT folks are not innately defective, are not ethically doomed to be criminals or sex fiends, and in fact, we can confidently predict that a majority of variant LGBT people will live daily lives that are average good to brilliantly excellent. (4) Public policy and law that presumes to conform with our legacy of negative beliefs is unjust, punitive for no empirically testable reason, and serves no common good in our contemporary democratic pluralistic culture.

    If we investigate beyond the numerous human science research studies, we begin to discover an absolutely amazing critical-historical convergence among other careful scholars …. all the way from New Testament people like Daniel Kirk, to Classicists like Sarah Ruden (Paul Among The People), to others too numerous to list in a blog post …. generous-positive views have been emerging in the humanities in addition to the human sciences.

    It has all been quite thought provoking, though not without angst given the really negative but mistaken legacy we have quite often been taught was unquestionably accurate.

  • Katrina Soto

    It’s the Episcopal Church, not the Episcopalian Church.

  • Reese Rickards

    It is shocking that you put quotation marks around the word Bishop in the headline to this story, and even more shocking you put quotation marks around the word church in the opening line of the body. Bishop Curry was ordained and consecrated by a church in the apostolic tradition and as such is in a direct line from the apostles themselves.

  • Faithfull

    Why does this article put quotation marks around Church and-in the headline – around Bishop? The Episcopal Church (Episcopalians are the members) was founded in 1789, and Michael Curry is its duly elected and confirmed Presiding Bishop.
    Typically quotation marks used in this way indicate sarcasm. Is that the writer’s intention?