re homosexual issues in christianity whitsebd nextwork rose hulman edu bryan whitsell sent in a list of verses which he felt condemn homosexuality mls panix com michael siemon wrote in response that some of these verses are used against us only through incredibly perverse interpretations and that others simply do not address the issues in response i wrote i can see that some of the above verses do not clearly address the issues however a couple of them seem as though they do not require incredibly perverse interpretations in order to be seen as condemning homosexuality do not be deceived neither fornicators nor idolators nor adulterers nor effeminate nor homosexuals nor thieves nor the covetous nor drunkards nor revilers nor swindlers shall inherit the kingdom of god and such were some of you i cor would someone care to comment on the fact that the above seems to say fornicators will not inherit the kingdom of god how does this apply to homosexuals i understand fornication to be sex outside of marriage is this an accurate definition is there any such thing as same sex marriage in the bible my understanding has always been that the new testament blesses sexual intercourse only between a husband and his wife i am however willing to listen to scriptural evidence to the contrary remainder of my post deleted the moderator then made some comments i would like to address there s some ambiguity about the meaning of the words in the passage you quote both liberal and conservative sources seem to agree that homosexual is not the general term for homosexuals but is likely to have a meaning like homosexual prostitute that doesn t meant that i think all the biblical evidence vanishes but the nature of the evidence is such that you can t just quote one verse and solve things if you are referring to the terms effeminate and homosexuals in the above passage i agree that the accuracy of the translation has been challenged however i was simply commenting on the charge that it is an incredibly perverse interpretation to read this as a condemnation of homosexuality such a charge seems to imply that no reasonable person would ever conclude from the verse that paul intended to condemn homosexuality however i think i can see how a reasonable person might very well take this view of the verse therefore i do not believe it is incredibly perverse to read it in this way i think your argument from fornication is circular why is homosexuality wrong because it s fornication why is it fornication because they re not married why aren t they married because the church refuses to do a marriage ceremony why does the church refuse to do a marriage ceremony because homosexuality is wrong in order to break the circle there s got to be some other reason to think homosexuality is wrong clh actually i wasn t thinking of the church at all after all a couple doesn t have to be married by a minister a secular justice of the peace could do the job and the two people would be married my point was that it is easy to find a biblical basis for heterosexual marriage but where in the bible would one get a christian marriage between two people of the same sex and if you do see a biblical basis for same sex marriages how willing would gay christians be to save themselves for such a marriage and to never have sexual intercourse with anyone outside of that marriage relationship please note that i am not trying to imply that gay christians would not be willing to be so monogamous i am genuinely interested in hearing opinions on the subject i have heard comments from gays in the past that lead me to believe they regard promiscuity as one of the main points of being homosexual yet i tend to doubt that gays who want to be christian would advocate such a position so what is the gay view mark yes i agree that a reasonable person might conclude that paul is condemning homosexuality i was responding to certain details of your posting that doesn t mean i agree with michael in all respects clh
