A couple weeks ago in Newsweek the cover article made the religious case for gay marriage citing that no where in the bible is marriage described as one man and one woman. In fact, many figures in the old testament took multiple wives or had offspring with their servants. Furthermore the overreaching theme of the new testament is to love your neighbor and that presumably means to allow him to be happy in own life and home.

Here is an excerpt from the article:


Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel--all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments--especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple--who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love--turn to the Bible as a how-to script?

I'm just curious if readers on this board have conducted a poll or expressed opinions on this issue in favor of gay marriage (I searched but could not find). I was also curious what the the opponents of gay marriage had to say about it from a biblical perspective and how they reconcile keeping two people in love apart with jesus's teachings?

Happy new year to all!

All of your questions can be answered by reading God's Word, the Bible! There are also many Christian internet sites that have FAQ for things of the Bilble that some may not understand. Truly, I hope that you will read the Bible and get the answers straight from God!!! Homosexuality is called an abomination in the OT and NT....God does not change!!!! IT would really benefit you more if you read the Bible yourself and found those scriptures. If you are truly seeking the truth, the Holy Spirit will reveal those truths to you....but, your heart must be sincere in your searc!!!!

Hope this helps, cause God truly never wanted anyone to perish and endure Hell....that was only meant for satan and his angels!!!!

God Bless:hug:

Greetings Powlette,

First, I respectfully disagree with the assertion that scriptural marriage is never described as one man and one woman. Genesis 2:24 is pretty clear about the quantity and genders of those involved. It does this while simultaneously prohibiting same sex intercourse.

You are of course correct that we are to love our neighbors, but "love" does not necessitate that we agree with them on everything. "Love" does not invoke moral relativism.

You also took notice of the actions of some of the patriarchs of the old testament. Abraham slept with his wife's servant. My question to you is: "what was the end result of that union"? The fact that things happen in scriptures, doesn't mean they're authorized. Abraham's tryst with Hagar was NOT God honoring and only lead to trouble. Solomon is also a character to look at, having hundreds of wives... but scripture is clear that they lead him astray.

I think if one truly wants the Biblical perspective, the text is fairly clear.

Romans 3:23 says that ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Even the patriarchs in the Bible sinned. What Sarai did in giving Hagar to Abraham was a part of the culture for that day, but that didn't make it right with God.

Everything in the Bible needs to be taken within the context that it is written. Often, secular media does not do this. Anyone can pull what they want to out of the Bible in order to justify their actions, but if it's not God's way...it's wrong. I agree with Livingwaters....seek God's face and His word. He will guide you to truth. Hope that helps.

That's a very interesting point, Powlette. I hadn't considered the example the Bible gives of marriage in that light before.

I am a supporter of gay marriage. While I do agree that the Bible contains several verses that appear to condemn homosexuality, I believe these verses pertain to same-sex, specifically male/male couples engaging in casual sex, not in long-term, monogamous homosexual relationships. Even if I did really think that homosexuality as practised by such couples was wrong in God's eyes, I would still accept gay marriage at a secular level. Legal marriage has nothing to do with Christianity or any other belief system. People of all faiths are free to marry. People are free to marry for money, for sex, because of attraction, to get citizenship, for love, for business and for whatever reason at all. They can marry even if they are drug addicts, criminals, con men or abusive to one another. That's not Christian either, but we accept that without problem, and I see no reason why homosexuality should be banned while people engaging in much more dangerous or abusive lifestyles can marry.

My answer to you is, if you really want to understand what God wants, ask him. Pray. That's all we can do.

People are free to do what they want, but that doesn't mean God approves of it or accepts it. God is our Creator and ultimately, Jesus will judge. So, if we proclaim to be Christians, we need to be living as the Word tells us to live, don't you agree!!!!!! We are supposed to witness the "truth" to others!!!! To the original poster, please, again, read your Bible!!!!

God Bless:)

People are free to do what they want, but that doesn't mean God approves of it. God is our Creator; our all-in-all!!! How, after reading the Bible can one say that same sex marriage is ok? Especially, someone who says they are a Christian. That's absurd!! REREAD YOUR Bible...IT is God's Word, not man's!!!! If God says not to lay with same sex, how will HE say, it's ok to marry same sex????? Sorry, that doesn't match what the WORD says!!!!

God Bless:)

To play devil's advocate, does the bible not also say that you shouldn't eat shellfish, wear clothes made of two different fibers, or plant two crops in the same field? There are many prohibitions in Leviticus, I'm just curious why this issue is backed so strongly by Christians, when other "abominations" are not? If rules are up for debate, why not err on the side of loving and respecting your fellow man's lifestyle?

That's a very interesting point, Powlette. I hadn't considered the example the Bible gives of marriage in that light before.

I am a supporter of gay marriage. While I do agree that the Bible contains several verses that appear to condemn homosexuality, I believe these verses pertain to same-sex, specifically male/male couples engaging in casual sex, not in long-term, monogamous homosexual relationships. Even if I did really think that homosexuality as practised by such couples was wrong in God's eyes, I would still accept gay marriage at a secular level. Legal marriage has nothing to do with Christianity or any other belief system. People of all faiths are free to marry. People are free to marry for money, for sex, because of attraction, to get citizenship, for love, for business and for whatever reason at all. They can marry even if they are drug addicts, criminals, con men or abusive to one another. That's not Christian either, but we accept that without problem, and I see no reason why homosexuality should be banned while people engaging in much more dangerous or abusive lifestyles can marry.

My answer to you is, if you really want to understand what God wants, ask him. Pray. That's all we can do.


I am for reaching out to homosexuals/ lesbians and teaching them God's Will on this issue, as stated in his Word the Bible. The bible is clear that same sex relationships are sinful, as previously stated, both in the Old & New Testaments.
Love at all times, for God, for our neighbour, amoung all followers of Jesus Christ, and even for our enemies. This does Not include sexual love between 2 people of the same sex and is specifically said to be wrong. Love SofTy.

A couple weeks ago in Newsweek the cover article made the religious case for gay marriage citing that no where in the bible is marriage described as one man and one woman. In fact, many figures in the old testament took multiple wives or had offspring with their servants. Furthermore the overreaching theme of the new testament is to love your neighbor and that presumably means to allow him to be happy in own life and home.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel--all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments--especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple--who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love--turn to the Bible as a how-to script?
I'm just curious if readers on this board have conducted a poll or expressed opinions on this issue in favor of gay marriage (I searched but could not find). I was also curious what the the opponents of gay marriage had to say about it from a biblical perspective and how they reconcile keeping two people in love apart with jesus's teachings?

Happy new year to all!We can spin it like this article and have a million polls but God is clear and He says No! So the only right answer is No. Any answer counter to this is being disobedient to God's will no matter what the reason or how people can gather various scriptures to piece together and 'create' a doctrine. When the Bible is read from cover to cover and all scripture is presented as God presented it to man through His Holy Spirit or direct utterance, God does not accept this sin.

To play devil's advocate, does the bible not also say that you shouldn't eat shellfish, wear clothes made of two different fibers, or plant two crops in the same field? There are many prohibitions in Leviticus, I'm just curious why this issue is backed so strongly by Christians, when other "abominations" are not? If rules are up for debate, why not err on the side of loving and respecting your fellow man's lifestyle?

Very astute question. Leviticus IS replete with prohibitions. Some are purely ceremonial, some are specific to Isreal as a nation, and some of them are moral dictates (as difficult as they are to understand). Its difficult to figure out which are which at times, but there are distinctions into which laws are applicable.

For example, for the breaking of some ceremonial laws, the treatment is ceremonial cleansing. Such laws are generally not given the extra descriptor of being "an abomination to God".

To play devil's advocate, does the bible not also say that you shouldn't eat shellfish, wear clothes made of two different fibers, or plant two crops in the same field? There are many prohibitions in Leviticus, I'm just curious why this issue is backed so strongly by Christians, when other "abominations" are not? If rules are up for debate, why not err on the side of loving and respecting your fellow man's lifestyle?

We don't need to look at the OT in order to see homosexuals relationships are wrong though...so to accuses of us picking and choosing what to follow is not true, unfair and a hand atheist usually pull out. There is plenty of scriptures in the NT against homosexual relationships...many verses about a man being married to a woman ...always presented as a single man and a single woman. Would you like to see those verses?

the article you posted is also extremely slanted and untrue...to no doubt get the reader to see things their way...


Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile?

Sarah actually urged Abraham to do this so their blood line could continue...she lacked faith that God would do as He promised in having her bear a child. The consequences for this were huge and far reaching though...God never said what they did was approved by Him at all.



Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)?

If I remember right, which I might not..lol...the wife had died then he remarried...never heard of him fathering children through servants.


Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel--all these fathers and heroes were polygamists.

Uh..no. Abraham had only one wife. As far as I know Jacob only had one wife at a time. Now David and Solomon did have more then one wife at a time...as did those in other nations during this age and time. It was part of their culture but God never said it was authorized by Him. David also committed adultery and had her husband killed but we don't go around saying that is ok to do because its in the bible! Their were clear consequences for these sins.


The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments--especially family.

Untrue. Jesus preached against divorce except in rare cases..He was very much for keeping the family together. At that time the Jews could divorce their wives for burning dinner...for any little thing. He was very much against this. Want scriptures on it?

Jesus did not have time for marriage...He had three years to do His ministry before He died...He knew it and it would have been a dis-service to any wife He would marry. He didn't have time to devout Himself to a marriage (one among many reasons He didn't marry)


The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered.

Wow what a horrible slant on things! First Paul never uses the term, 'animal lust'...second the only reason he discouraged getting married at that time was because the church was under heavy persecution! Believers were constantly being arrested for their faith and drug off to prison and killed. Nero was also hunting them down...throwing whole families in the arena to be torn apart by lions...among other gruesome things. If you lived in a situation like that would you feel it was a good time to get married and start a family?

1 Corinthians 7
25 Now regarding your question about the young women who are not yet married. I do not have a command from the Lord for them. But the Lord in his mercy has given me wisdom that can be trusted, and I will share it with you. 26 Because of the present crisis, I think it is best to remain as you are. 27 If you have a wife, do not seek to end the marriage. If you do not have a wife, do not seek to get married.


Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple--who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love--turn to the Bible as a how-to script?

Sure why not? The bible has great advise on how a husband is to love his wife and treat her and how she is to treat him.

To play devil's advocate, does the bible not also say that you shouldn't eat shellfish, wear clothes made of two different fibers, or plant two crops in the same field? There are many prohibitions in Leviticus, I'm just curious why this issue is backed so strongly by Christians, when other "abominations" are not? If rules are up for debate, why not err on the side of loving and respecting your fellow man's lifestyle?

Is it loving and kind to embrace a drug addicts lifestyle? Thank God that he delivered me from those things that hurt me. I know people today that no longer walk in bondage to homosexuality. They will tell you they don't want to go back. It's not loving and kind to leave someone in distress.

Very astute question. Leviticus IS replete with prohibitions. Some are purely ceremonial, some are specific to Isreal as a nation, and some of them are moral dictates (as difficult as they are to understand). Its difficult to figure out which are which at times, but there are distinctions into which laws are applicable.

For example, for the breaking of some ceremonial laws, the treatment is ceremonial cleansing. Such laws are generally not given the extra descriptor of being "an abomination to God".

Not the broaden the question too much, but why is the bible so open to different interpretations? Why did god not lay it out simply and clearly. Jainism for example, dictates that you should strive to "cause no physical, mental or spiritual harm to any living thing". Followers of Jainism are therefore vegetarians (which I am not). But this kind of rule is one I could get behind. It's direct, clear and concise. It isn't open to interpretation (or misinterpretation).

To play devil's advocate, does the bible not also say that you shouldn't eat shellfish, wear clothes made of two different fibers, or plant two crops in the same field? There are many prohibitions in Leviticus, I'm just curious why this issue is backed so strongly by Christians, when other "abominations" are not? If rules are up for debate, why not err on the side of loving and respecting your fellow man's lifestyle?

A lot of the Law in Leviticus actually makes a lot of sense now we know more about how things work. I'm sure you know what happens if you eat dodgy shellfish - so by simply saying that eating shellfish at all is unacceptable the early Israelites were spared all the consequences of eating dodgy oysters. We can tell a lot about the Old Testament law by looking at how it is reinforced and referenced in the New Testament. For example:

Mar 7:18 So He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him,
Mar 7:19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?"
Mar 7:20 And He said, "What comes out of a man, that defiles a man.

in which Jesus declares all foods to be "clean".

But then we see here:

1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
1Co 6:10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

where Paul reinforces the law from Leviticus that these things are an abomination before God.

It's all very well to talk about loving and respecting someone else's lifestyle, but we are called to warn people of the consequences of living in sin. Homosexuality is a sin, as is adultery, idolatry and so on.

If you knew someone who was a habitual drink-driver would you do something about it, or decide it was better to respect their lifestyle?

Not the broaden the question too much, but why is the bible so open to different interpretations? Why did god not lay it out simply and clearly. Jainism for example, dictates that you should strive to "cause no physical, mental or spiritual harm to any living thing". Followers of Jainism are therefore vegetarians (which I am not). But this kind of rule is one I could get behind. It's direct, clear and concise. It isn't open to interpretation (or misinterpretation).

The Bible is only subject to this kind of problem, when you take part of it and not the whole.
God is against homosexuality. It is contrary to why he created Man and Woman. He would not be pro-gay marriage.
It's this generation of Niceness and political correctness. I would rather tell someone the truth according to the Word of God and give them a chance to repent, then risk my own salvation by causing others to stumble endorsing a lifestyle that is contrary to God's plan for man and woman since the beginning of time. Allowing this to happen only deepens the chasm. Personally, I vote how the spirit advises me, but if they passed gay marriage tomorrow, I would be fine (well not fine, but not jumping off a cliff upset either) with that. It's a secular law for secular people. Whether or not it's legal is not the litmus for whether it is right or not, in God's sight. That is the Bible and it says that it is wrong. Not only that it is wrong, but that those who live that way will be judged and punished.

Not the broaden the question too much, but why is the bible so open to different interpretations? Why did god not lay it out simply and clearly. Jainism for example, dictates that you should strive to "cause no physical, mental or spiritual harm to any living thing". Followers of Jainism are therefore vegetarians (which I am not). But this kind of rule is one I could get behind. It's direct, clear and concise. It isn't open to interpretation (or misinterpretation).

Well, I'm not going to lie to you and say that its easy. There are some things which appear debatable or situational. For example, is it still law to refrain from wearing mixed fibres? I'd say that one is debatable. Is it still law to surrender your land to its original owner after 50 years? I'd say thats situational (to the nation of Isreal under theocratic rule). Far more frequently however, we see the moral guideline clearly written, especially in such acts God considers "abominations".

Jainism certainly appears simple and concise at a cursory glance, but they suffer from the same questions on non-central doctrines. For example... is it ok for a Jain to eat a root vegetable?

Far more frequently however, we see the moral guideline clearly written, especially in such acts God considers "abominations".


speaking of "abominations", can I quote Deuteronomy 22:5?

A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God

Does this mean Rudy Giuliani who went in drag to a fancy dress party has committed an immoral act equivalent to homosexuality, eating shrimp or murder (Proverbs 6:17)? Why are these things equally bad (abominations)? Or can we not ask these questions? Can you understand why a non-theist would look at this and say something is amiss?

Jainism for example, dictates that you should strive to "cause no physical, mental or spiritual harm to any living thing". Followers of Jainism are therefore vegetarians (which I am not). But this kind of rule is one I could get behind. It's direct, clear and concise. It isn't open to interpretation (or misinterpretation).
How do you think Jainists handle the fact that millions of small animals are killed each year in order to harvest grains, fruits and vegetables?

A couple weeks ago in Newsweek the cover article made the religious case for gay marriage citing that no where in the bible is marriage described as one man and one woman. In fact, many figures in the old testament took multiple wives or had offspring with their servants. Furthermore the overreaching theme of the new testament is to love your neighbor and that presumably means to allow him to be happy in own life and home.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel--all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments--especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple--who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love--turn to the Bible as a how-to script?
I'm just curious if readers on this board have conducted a poll or expressed opinions on this issue in favor of gay marriage (I searched but could not find). I was also curious what the the opponents of gay marriage had to say about it from a biblical perspective and how they reconcile keeping two people in love apart with jesus's teachings?

Happy new year to all!

Newsweak people need to read their Bibles. Jesus himself specifically said marriage is for one man and one woman. Matthew 19:4-6. Failure to point this out kills any credibility this article could ever hope to have.

To play devil's advocate, does the bible not also say that you shouldn't eat shellfish, wear clothes made of two different fibers, or plant two crops in the same field? There are many prohibitions in Leviticus, I'm just curious why this issue is backed so strongly by Christians, when other "abominations" are not? If rules are up for debate, why not err on the side of loving and respecting your fellow man's lifestyle?
... I realize I'm Bill and that I'm late here but you are right about the shellfish but, oh that giant three letter word, God, in the New Testament told, old foot in the mouth, Peter that all food was declared good to eat and that canceled that law out.

Not the broaden the question too much, but why is the bible so open to different interpretations? Why did god not lay it out simply and clearly. Jainism for example, dictates that you should strive to "cause no physical, mental or spiritual harm to any living thing". Followers of Jainism are therefore vegetarians (which I am not). But this kind of rule is one I could get behind. It's direct, clear and concise. It isn't open to interpretation (or misinterpretation).
... If you ever determine to seek the heart of God you will be blessed to receive the Holy Spirit of God and from that point on you will see the Bible as very clearly written and you will begin to realize that most people that call themselves Christian are not. Jesus gave the reason for the Bible being written in God's own style when He explained to the disciples the reason He taught in parables, the Bible is for the believer and noone else.

speaking of "abominations", can I quote Deuteronomy 22:5?

A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God

Does this mean Rudy Giuliani who went in drag to a fancy dress party has committed an immoral act equivalent to homosexuality, eating shrimp or murder (Proverbs 6:17)? Why are these things equally bad (abominations)? Or can we not ask these questions? Can you understand why a non-theist would look at this and say something is amiss?
... Since I am not God I will not answer that with any authority, how ever it is also written that thou shalt not tempt the LORD thy God and I certainly will not do that.

speaking of "abominations", can I quote Deuteronomy 22:5?

A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God

Does this mean Rudy Giuliani who went in drag to a fancy dress party has committed an immoral act equivalent to homosexuality, eating shrimp or murder (Proverbs 6:17)? Why are these things equally bad (abominations)? Or can we not ask these questions? Can you understand why a non-theist would look at this and say something is amiss?

Powlette, are you interested in understanding the Bible, or are you merely looking to throw individual verses at us regardless of their context?

Jesus already told us this:

Mar 12:28 Then one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, perceiving that He had answered them well, asked Him, "Which is the first commandment of all?"
Mar 12:29 Jesus answered him, "The first of all the commandments is: 'HEAR, O ISRAEL, THE LORD OUR GOD, THE LORD IS ONE.
Mar 12:30 AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.' This is the first commandment.
Mar 12:31 And the second, like it, is this: 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

The important commandments are that we love God, and love each other. Re-read the Old Testament law in the light of this - Matthew's account goes slightly further, adding this:

Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."

speaking of "abominations", can I quote Deuteronomy 22:5?

A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God

Does this mean Rudy Giuliani who went in drag to a fancy dress party has committed an immoral act equivalent to homosexuality, eating shrimp or murder (Proverbs 6:17)? Why are these things equally bad (abominations)? Or can we not ask these questions? Can you understand why a non-theist would look at this and say something is amiss?

Romans 7 shows we are no longer bound by the laws of the OT...only the Ten Commandments was carried over. Jesus added two commandments but if these two are followed you end up following the Ten.

So no, we don't have to worry about what material our clothes are made out of, or eating shrimp, or any of that stuff. As I said before, we don't need to look to the OT to figure out if homosexuality is considered a sin or not in the eyes of God...we aren't picking and choosing what to follow in the OT as so many accuse of us...we aren't Jews...we are Christians which means we follow the teachings of Christ...the only thing we have to follow is Christ's commandments which are to love each other as He has loved us and to love God. Pretty simple actually.

Homosexuality is considered a sin along with others because it causes injury to the person and others. Studies show the life expectancy of gay men is greatly reduced due to STD. its not a healthy life style. Other studies show the damage done to children raised by gay couples. There is a long, long list of the long term and wide spread damages this causes not just to them personally but to others, the community and society in general.

I don't think its very loving to wish anyone have a lifestyle that hurts them and shortens their life actually...

I'm not here to throw versus at anyone, I'm merely asking questions. As much as I'd like to understand the bible, I don't think I have any hope of doing so because it's so convoluted which is evidenced by the replies I've gotten. The reasoning and scripture and basis for conclusions on this issue varies so widely. How we should interpret OT laws and which are important seems up for debate as well - and this is coming from a group of people who have invested countless hours reading and rereading the bible.

If we agree, as moonglow says, that the OT laws no longer apply and Jesus made no comment on homosexuality and said only to love your neighbor as yourself, why can we not conclude that we should love our gay friends and give them every right that the rest of us enjoy? This logic seems straightforward and in keeping with the spirit of the NT.

If we agree, as moonglow says, that the OT laws no longer apply and Jesus made no comment on homosexuality and said only to love your neighbor as yourself, why can we not conclude that we should love our gay friends and give them every right that the rest of us enjoy? This logic seems straightforward and in keeping with the spirit of the NT.The Bible is the inspired Word of God. Inspired by the Holy Spirit so all that is written is by Jesus. The words from His mouth as we read in the 4 Gospels are in red in many Bible to point out what He spoke. However, the remaining Words are inspired by the Holy Spirit... in other words, what those men spoke and wrote is Jesus speaking through them. So when you read Romans 1:18-32 it is from Jesus, just not out of His mouth but inspired by Him through man. So we can't say Jesus "didn't" say anything against this sin.

To the OP, I figure the reason you started this thread is to find the truth so don't read our opinions of scripture, don't read the opinions of other "resources" posted in this thread. The magazine article you posted included.

Read the Bible and seek the truth and not a lie. Jesus is very specific as to what will happen to people who die in this sin and receive His righteous judgement and the word Jesus uses is, "deserving of death".

Specific words He uses to describe this sin (Romans 1:18-32 - NKJV): futile in their thoughts, foolish hearts were darkend, Professing to be wise, they became fools, made like corruptible man, gave them up to uncleanness, lusts of their hearts, dishonor their bodies among themselves, exchanged the truth of God for the lie, worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, God gave them up to vile passions, men- leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, in themselves the penalty of their error which was due., not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, things which are not fitting,

and the final verse and the outcome of this and all the other sins listed: 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

So, removing our human opinions and desires to satisfy our flesh... we have the truth that Jesus spoke.

On those words "also approve of those who practice them"... so all these Christians who support Gay Marraige... based on what the truth of Jesus Christ is, I doubt He'd support Gay Marraige. Some spin and say cause of Love they'd support them? Support what? A sinful lifestyle? Support sin? Christ-like Love would enable a Christian to offer correction to those in this sinful lifestyle and help them to the truth in Jesus Christ... not support this lifestyle and lead them away from the truth in Jesus Christ and allow them to think it's OK (to sin) by supporting their sinful lifestyle.

I'm not here to throw versus at anyone, I'm merely asking questions. As much as I'd like to understand the bible, I don't think I have any hope of doing so because it's so convoluted which is evidenced by the replies I've gotten. The reasoning and scripture and basis for conclusions on this issue varies so widely. How we should interpret OT laws and which are important seems up for debate as well - and this is coming from a group of people who have invested countless hours reading and rereading the bible.

If we agree, as moonglow says, that the OT laws no longer apply and Jesus made no comment on homosexuality and said only to love your neighbor as yourself, why can we not conclude that we should love our gay friends and give them every right that the rest of us enjoy? This logic seems straightforward and in keeping with the spirit of the NT.

God used physical things to explain spiritual things. He created trees, to explain abiding. He created many things. In the OT, he dealt with the physical in order to explain the spiritual.

There are plenty of OT quotes on food. God often said "Be holy as I am holy" after he gave the food laws. Then in the NT he explained it further. Our thought life is food for the soul. We need to be careful what we think and what we dwell on. Most actions begin when we allow our minds to lead us into those actions.

We do love our gay friends. That's why we help them. It would not be love to encourage them to continue in that which is harmful to them. Enabling is not loving.

Not the broaden the question too much, but why is the bible so open to different interpretations? Why did god not lay it out simply and clearly. Jainism for example, dictates that you should strive to "cause no physical, mental or spiritual harm to any living thing". Followers of Jainism are therefore vegetarians (which I am not). But this kind of rule is one I could get behind. It's direct, clear and concise. It isn't open to interpretation (or misinterpretation).

It was hard for me to see or hear God when I wanted to be my own god. I had a lot of the "what if's" and problems with the hypocritcal, legalistic, holier than thou Christians. Maybe God wants you and him to work it out, after all he did create you. If you truly seek, you will find. Just don't give up. It is kind of funny, because even though I am a new creation, he left a lot of "the me" that he created in here.

I'm not here to throw versus at anyone, I'm merely asking questions. As much as I'd like to understand the bible, I don't think I have any hope of doing so because it's so convoluted which is evidenced by the replies I've gotten. The reasoning and scripture and basis for conclusions on this issue varies so widely. How we should interpret OT laws and which are important seems up for debate as well - and this is coming from a group of people who have invested countless hours reading and rereading the bible.

If we agree, as moonglow says, that the OT laws no longer apply and Jesus made no comment on homosexuality and said only to love your neighbor as yourself, why can we not conclude that we should love our gay friends and give them every right that the rest of us enjoy? This logic seems straightforward and in keeping with the spirit of the NT.

What exactly is the "spirit of the NT"?

If you are merely asking questions then why are you either misrepresenting or misquoting - purposefully or not - either Scriptural text (be that the Tanakh or the New Testament) or those with whom you are discussing? I'm supposing you would tell me that in fact, you aren't misrepresenting or misquoting anyone, though I disagree; you're being quite intellectually dishonest.

For instance, you said:

If we agree, as moonglow says, that the OT laws no longer apply and Jesus made no comment on homosexuality and said only to love your neighbor as yourself

That is interesting. You see, Moonglow did talk about the OT Laws "not applying", as per Romans 7. She also spoke of Jesus' commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. What she did not, say, however, was that Jesus made no comment on homosexuality. In fact, she said the opposite (below):


We don't need to look at the OT in order to see homosexuals relationships are wrong though...so to accuses of us picking and choosing what to follow is not true, unfair and a hand atheist usually pull out. There is plenty of scriptures in the NT against homosexual relationships...many verses about a man being married to a woman ...always presented as a single man and a single woman. Would you like to see those verses?

Furthermore, Jesus said in Mark 10:6-8
But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.
"FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.

Now to be fair, Moonglow didn't express herself as well as she could have and probably assumed too much when she said we are no longer bound by the laws of the Old Testament. More properly expressed we are no longer bound by religious (priestly) or societal laws, though moral laws did carry over (such as the 10 commandments). Categorically, laws against eating shellfish and wearing garments made of two fabrics are different than those laws against homosexuality. The former are concerned with religious and societal laws, the latter with moral law.

Abraham's tryst with Hagar was NOT God honoring and only lead to trouble.

I disagree with this but understand your very excellent point. That mistakes made should not be mistakes repeated.

Not the broaden the question too much, but why is the bible so open to different interpretations?

It's not.



Why did god not lay it out simply and clearly. Jainism for example, dictates that you should strive to "cause no physical, mental or spiritual harm to any living thing". Followers of Jainism are therefore vegetarians (which I am not). But this kind of rule is one I could get behind. It's direct, clear and concise. It isn't open to interpretation (or misinterpretation).

You're a believer in karma and reincarnation, then?

I'll take the minority view here. While I don't agree with homosexuality nor do I understand it well, homosexuals shouldn't be denied the benefits of being married such as being with their significant other, sharing insurance policies, tax deductions etc. If Christians are offended at the union being called a "marriage," then it could be called something else. If we feel we can deny majority benefits to certain people because they disobey a law in the Bible, then anyone anywhere can be disqualified.

I can not control what a majority elected government does, however I can stand firm on bible principles/ God's stated Will on homosexuality. I could never support gay marriage and will always feel the need to speak out against it.

I would also feel the urgent need to leave a church that said it supported homosexuality/ lesbianism. To steer any believer to the correct biblically stated Will of God. SofTy.

A couple weeks ago in Newsweek the cover article made the religious case for gay marriage citing that no where in the bible is marriage described as one man and one woman. In fact, many figures in the old testament took multiple wives or had offspring with their servants. Furthermore the overreaching theme of the new testament is to love your neighbor and that presumably means to allow him to be happy in own life and home.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel--all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments--especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple--who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love--turn to the Bible as a how-to script?
I'm just curious if readers on this board have conducted a poll or expressed opinions on this issue in favor of gay marriage (I searched but could not find). I was also curious what the the opponents of gay marriage had to say about it from a biblical perspective and how they reconcile keeping two people in love apart with jesus's teachings?

Happy new year to all!

I will openly support homosexual marriage when 2 men or 2 women can make a baby.

I do not support Gay Marriage. I do support Gay Unions. They should not use a bible, or have a person of the Christian faith marrying 2 gay people cause it goes directly against Christian Doctrine.