re homosexual issues in christianity in article may geneva rutgers edu mls panix com michael siemon writes i notice that the verse forbidding bestiality immediately follows the verse prohibiting what appears to be homosexual intercourse it is absolutely irrelevant and incomparable to the issues gay christians do raise which concern sexual activity within committed consensual human adult realtionships so that your bringing it up is no more relevant than the laws of kashrut if you cannot address the actual issues you are being bloody dishonest in trailing this red herring in front of the world no it is very relevant homosexual acts and acts of beastiality are topically aranged together in the law this is very important anyone who would want to say that this command against homosexuality deals with temple prostitution and i think you would agree that there is no proof for this if the law reveals the character of god and is holy just and good as is written in the new testament then those who consider we who are against commiting homosexuals acts to be biggots have to address this passage of scripture why must we only discuss scriptures that involve consensual human adult relationships isn t that bordering on sophistry the point we are making is that god did not ordain certain kinds of sex acts not everyone who brings up these scriptures is just trying to use and emotional argument that compares homosexuals to beastophiles and child molestors the issue we are dealing with is that some sex acts are ungodly i do not have problem with a loving nonlustful relationship with a member of the same sex i have them and we all do the issue at hand is the sinfulness having sex with members of the same sex or lusting after so other forbidden sex acts are a valid topic for conversation and the idea that these relationships may be emotional relationships between adult humans is red herring we all agree that it is okay for adults to have caring relationships with one another link hudson
