Question is Based on False Assumptions About What the Bible Teaches
Is homosexuality a sin?
That's a bit like asking, Is slavery a sin? or Is interracial dating a sin? All three questions are based on false assumptions about what the Bible teaches. Some folks used the Bible to defend slavery and segregation, both of which are now acknowledged to be wrong. What the Bible says has not changed but how we understand and apply what the Bible says has changed.
Those who oppose homosexual partnerships use the Bible to defend their oppression of gays and lesbians. They use the power of government to deny civil rights to gays and lesbians under the rubric of obeying God. Yet when prominent Christian and conservative leaders discover they have a gay son or lesbian daughter, this new perspective changes their interpretation of the clobber passages. The Bible has not changed but their understanding and application of what the Bible says does change because now, it affects their family.
Homosexuality is not a sin although homosexuals are sinners, just like heterosexuals are sinners. The ground is level at the foot of the Cross. God welcomes homosexuals and heterosexuals. "Whosoever will may come" means just that. God looks at our hearts and our motives. Love, honor, integrity and how we treat each other are 'rubber meets the road' issues for God but homosexuality is not a big deal for God or the Bible.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
First, legal and ecclesiastical embrace of homosexual unions is more likely to undermine the institution of marriage and produce other negative effects than it is to make fidelity and longevity the norm for homosexual unions.
homosexual unions are not wrong primarily because of their disproportionately high incidence of promiscuity (especially among males) and breakups (especially among females). They are wrong because “gay marriage” is a contradiction in terms. As with consensual adult incest and polyamory, considerations of commitment and fidelity factor only after certain structural prerequisites are met.
The vision of marriage found in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures is one of reuniting male and female into an integrated sexual whole. Marriage is not just about more intimacy and sharing one’s life with another in a lifelong partnership. It is about sexual merger—or, in Scripture’s understanding, re-merger—of essential maleness and femaleness. The creation story in Genesis 2:18-24 illustrates this point beautifully. An originally binary, or sexually undifferentiated, adam (“earthling”) is split down the “side” (a better translation of Hebrew tsela than “rib”) to form two sexually differentiated persons. Marriage is pictured as the reunion of the two constituent parts or “other halves,” man and woman.
This is not an optional or minor feature of the story. Since the only difference created by the splitting is a differentiation into two distinct sexes, the only way to reconstitute the sexual whole, on the level of erotic intimacy, is to bring together the split parts. A same-sex erotic relationship can never constitute a marriage because it will always lack the requisite sexual counterparts or complements.
By definition homosexual desire is sexual narcissism or sexual self-deception. There is either (1) a conscious recognition that one desires in another what one already is and has as a sexual being (anatomy, physiology, sex-based traits) or (2) a self-delusion of sorts in which the sexual same is perceived as some kind of sexual other. As one ancient text puts it, “seeing themselves in one another they were ashamed neither of what they were doing nor of what they were having done to them” (Pseudo-Lucian, Affairs of the Heart 20). The modern word “homosexual”—from the Greek homoios, “like” or “same”—underscores this self-evident desire for the essential sexual self shared in common with one’s partner.
Biden says gay marriage 'inevitable' news.yahoo.com ( http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_biden_gay_marriage )
Vice President Joe Biden says the country is evolving on the issue of gay marriage and he thinks it's inevitable there will be national consensus.Biden says gay marriage 'inevitable' news.yahoo.com
Vice President Joe Biden says the country is evolving on the issue of gay marriage and he thinks it's inevitable there will be national consensus. Vice President Joe Biden is predicting that the evolution in thinking that will permit gays to soon serve openly in the military eventually will bring about a national consensus for same-sex marriage.
Changes in attitudes by military leaders, those in the service and the public allowed the repeal by Congress of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, Biden noted in a nationally broadcast interview on Christmas eve.
"I think the country's evolving," he said on ABC's "Good Morning America." "And I think you're going to see, you know, the next effort is probably going to be to deal with so-called DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act)." He said he agreed with Obama that his position in gay marriage is "evolving."
Gay marriage is legal in only a handful of states, mostly in the Northeast, and in Iowa. President Barack Obama recently said his feelings on the gay marriage issue were in a state of transition. But he also said he still believes in allowing strong civil unions that provide certain protections and legal rights that married couples have.
Excuse me for being politically incorrect, but have people forgotten the reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gamora - Sexual perversion. The definition of Marriage is and should continue to mean the exclusive union of one man and one woman. Perhaps civil unions may eventually become a socially acceptable option for gays, but it still does not make it right. Gay used to be a good word, a happy and pleasant word. There is nothing happy and pleasant about homosexual activities! It is a perversion that sickens the heart of God! Romans 1:21-32 still describes the SIN of SODOMY!
I truly don't understand why the concept of "sin" is raised at all. Clearly homosexuals are identical to heterosexuals in everything except sexual preference. Condemning someone for that seems entirely unchristian to me.
The bible itself has been re-written, translated, intentionally altered dozens of times over the 1800 or so years. There were originally many more books, but only four were chosen, for most likely political reasons.
There are passages in the bible that claim it is okay to allow fathers to KILL their children for disobeying. Citing chapters in the bible to prove a point is ignorant, pointless, stupid, and socially damaging, when many passages contain truly disgusting acts made by christians.
It is the adherance to the belief system that you display in your comment that has gotten this country where it is today..And, I belief, the same process that brought about the destruction of multiple civilizations. The minimization of Scripture; the pompous belief that man has Truth, or at least has the capability of finding Truth; that we as people are born "good"; that there is no "right" or "wrong" in this world; that there is no afterlife, or consequences for our current behaviors or liefstyles--these are all consequences of modern thoughts/beliefs. Let me boil this down to one question: Would it be wrong for an adult male to sexually abuse a female infant? The child will have no recollection of the event(s), so no "harm" was technically done, and it fulfilled the deranged desires of the abuser. What would you do if this happened to YOUR daughter?
This absurd example is an extreme, used to highlight the fallacy and illogical nature of modern "logic."
God's reality and commands never lead to anything "disgusting." The Old Testament commands about 'putting to death' is hyperbole. For example, to my knowledge, there are no records showing that disrespectful children were put to death. I believe social commands such as this one were given to highlight the importance of and to decree the exact social hierarchy/structure (e.g. the role and respect given to parents; their influence and control over their children).
I just wanted to point out that an adult male sexually abusing a female infant would likely have physically damaging effects in all likelihood (depending on the nature of it, obviously), and quite possibly damage the child psychologically as well. We are very nascent in our understanding of what the mind remembers as an infant, but I remember a study of orphan babies who died from lack of touch... it hardly seems that it would make sense that the child merely required a certain touching of the body by a warm body, but rather that there is an emotional memory perhaps as well. In any case, the very fact of a *possibility* of damage immediately presents a moral problem apart from any need to have some external rule that tells me that this action would be ill-advised. :)
Why is it silly? I would like to know more about this!! How much do you actually know about the History of the Bible? I can tell you, though I am not a student of the Bible, that there are 66 books in the Bible. More than that if you include the Apocrypha from the 1611 version of the Bible.
It is no more silly for people to follow the principles of the Bible than it is for you or I to follow the teachings of any modern day writer. What does that mean? It means that you pick any given writer of today (not fictional). They have a following. That following is known for their stance on the teachings of that individual.
From what I do know of the Bible, there are allot of Customs dealt with in the Bible that were specific to the Jews. Those were Old Testament laws.
A person using the Bible to prove their point is no more ignorant, pointless, stupid, and socially damaging than someone picking up the latest Psychology book by the Latest writer and Whole heartedly following what that person teaches.
I agree on that point... while I do not read the words of any man without discernment or engagement of my own mind and spirit, even the words of the Bible, it certainly does not strike me as ignorant to be able to study it a great deal and meditate on what I feel to be inspired words. Of course, in my opinion, any great work of literature is inspired.
I hear constantly about the "outdated" and "no longer applicable" verses in Leviticus - I recently read about a youngish - 40 something man- who had lived-according to modern standads- a relatively "righteous" life; but now he has throat cancer - why? it turns out that if you engage in oral sex the chances of acquiring the pap virus that causes cervical cancer in women- will increase your chances of oral and throat cancer, and it increases when you have multiple partners. The manifestation of throat cancer in younger patients who have never smoked or "engaged in risky behavior" is rising at an alarming rate. Why? because we have changed and accepted as "normal" what the Bible has prohibited or declared a sin. A man was designed to enter a woman, and a woman was designed to receive a man.Jesus dealt with remarriage, divorce, and He clearly stated what constitutes marriage - a man and a woman. And only one man for one woman, and only one woman for one man. We have a wondrous beautiful God of order and elegant, beautiful design. That His creation has been warped and deformed by sin is a fact. "creation groans under the weight of man's sin" we are told how ALL creation waits for the day of the redeemed - we live under Grace - "do we continue in sin in order to attain more grace? - may it never be!!!"
People have used the Bible to support many false teachings and agendas. It has been used to defend polygamy, Aryanism, racism, slavery, crusades, and the oppression of women. Just because scriptures have been used out of context and manipulated in the past by people with harmful and wicked agendas does not invalidate their veracity. For our ancestors to use scripture to defend the institution of American slavery was to use scripture out of context. In the same way, to use scripture to defend the acceptability of homosexual behavior is to use it out of context. I appreciate the quote by George MacDonald:
"To give truth to him who loves it not is only to give him more plentiful material for misrepresentation."
The point has been made by many that Christ never said anything condemning homosexuality. However, there is also an absence of biblical condemnation of slavery. In fact, it gave regulations for slaves and slave owners (slavery during Greco-Roman era was vastly different than the atrocity of Western-European and American slavery). This line of thinking was used by slave owners to justify their position which contradicted the biblical doctrine of man. If there is a parallel in this discussion of homosexuality, it is the use of the same strategy to justify homosexual behavior.
This argument and other arguments regarding the issues surrounding slavery cannot be effectively utilized in defending homosexuality. The major difference is that there are multiple scriptural references condemning homosexual behavior. People cannot defend sexual practices clearly condemned by biblical teaching in the same way as our “pro-slavery” Christian ancestors may have done in defending slavery. There cannot be the claim that the Bible actually affirms this practice and offers no condemnation of it. Therefore, to claim that scripture is being used to promote the condemnation of homosexuality in the same manner as it was to promote the establishment of American slavery is invalid.
I often wander why people use the Bible as valid data to back anything up. I am neither for nor against it. I do not know enough about it to know.
I do know that people sure can find allow of places to stand on it with just about any subject.
This is interesting.
In his 520 page book, THE BIBLE AND HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICE, anti-gay evangelical Christian activist, Dr. Robert Gagnon, devotes more than ten pages to proving his assertion that "homosexual shrine prostitution" was the primary form of homosexual activity in ancient Israel.
So there's no misunderstanding, Dr. Gagnon is adamantly against every kind of homosexual relationship. That's why his opinion about the prevalence of shrine prostitution in ancient Israeli is so startling.
When the leading anti-gay evangelical Christian activist admits in print, that gay Christians are right (that the context of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is shrine prostitution), we have already won a major part of the argument.
Carefully note what Dr. Robert Gagnon says.
“I do not doubt that the circles out of which Lev 18:22 was produced had in view homosexual cult prostitution, at least partly. Homosexual cult prostitution appears to have been the primary form in which homosexual intercourse was practiced in Israel." - Gagnon, p. 130
"There is good evidence of homosexual cult prostitution in Israel during the period of the divided monarchy.” p. 100.
The [Hebrew] term [qedesim/qades] denotes “men at cult sites who engaged in homosexual prostitution: male temple (or cult, shrine, sacred) prostitutes.” p. 101.
Qedesim “...one of whose cultic functions was to offer their bodies to other men for same-sex intercourse.” p. 102.
“two other occurances of qedesa in the Bible (Gen 38:21-22; Hos 4:14) also link it with the term zona, “prostitute, harlot.”p. 103. Homosexuality wrong?
“The remark in I Kgs 14:24 that the people of Judah “conformed their behavior to all the abominations (toebot) of the nations which Yahweh dispossessed” sounds remarkably like the summary in Lev 18:24-30, which followed a listing of sexual offenses that singled out in particular same-sex male intercourse as an “abomination.”” p. 103.
“the same-sex role of the assinu, kugarru, and kuluu (who, owing to castration, were certainly unsuitable partners for heterosexual intercourse and impregnation) does provide good evidence for homosexual cult prostitution.” p. 104.
“The harsh descriptions of the qedesim in I-2 Kings (I Kgs 14:24: “even qades were in the land”) and Job 36:14, along with the epithet of “dog” in Deu 23:18, suggests a degree of revulsion more suited to same-sex male cult prostitution.” p. 104.
“That means Josiah’s action against the qedesim in the temple precincts was likely taken as a direct result of laws in Deut 23:17-18 regarding the qedesim or “dogs.”” p. 106.
“It can hardly be denied that... (the author of Job 36:14) regarded the qedesim as homosexual cult prostitutes.” p. 108.
“Cult association is established by the name “holy/consecrated ones” and by the connection to Asherah. The element of prostitution is clear from Deut 23:17-18 (fees for services rendered) and the connection to qedesot, who elsewhere are identified as harlots.” p. 108. Homosexuality wrong?
“The same-sex dimension is suggested by the label “dogs,” by history of religion parallels, and by the unlikelihood of male heterosexual prostitution.” p. 108.
“The existence of homosexual shrine prostitutes in Judah was a recurring problem.” Dr. Robert Gagnon, p. 110."
Its not gay people who are taking the Bible out of context.
Its the Christian anti-gay activists who take the Bible out of context.
What is "homosexuality", really? Affection, including sexual desire, for someone of the same sex? I do not see how this is sinful, particularly if one understands that desire is not synonymous with lust. The prohibition in Leviticus seems somewhat vague to me, because I am not sure what it means for a man to "lie with a man as with a woman" -- is this just a euphemistic, sanitized way to prohibit male-male insertive intercourse? Or is it perhaps even broader as it seems to be with just a simple reading perhaps less encumbered by a preconceived notion?
One thing I noted in the many very well written posts by Rick Brentlinger is what seems to my mind to be a tendency by "pro-gay" theologians to infuse apparently unfavorable passages (like Romans 1) with a lot of "context" that, while important, still do not nullify the negative characterization given to same-sex activity for reason of it being "same sex". As an example, in Romans 1:26-27, regardless of the particular context, it is the same-sex nature itself that is called a "vile affection" or "degrading passion", "men with men committing indecent acts". I agree that this evokes a different picture if we view it either narrowly in the context of modern Western gay culture or in the context in which Paul wrote it and which is described well on the site Rick referenced.
However, the language strongly convinces me that Paul *is* characterizing in one sense or another the same-sex sexual passion *itself* as "vile" or "degrading"; because he condemns idolatry and fornication (the other elements that happened to be present in these rituals), also, separately, above and below verses 26 and 27. In fact, given the ordering of the verses and how he writes, he seems to me to be making the case that idolatry in a nation (a people) *leads* to the eventual cultivation in the nation of these "vile affections", which he finds self-evidently degrading in their very nature. (To paraphrase Paul, "They didn't want to honor God, but began to worship themselves and other created things more than the Creator himself... so God let them come to the natural conclusion of such a choice to dishonor God, for to dishonor God is to necessarily dishonor one's own body, and one of the ways they dishonor their own bodies is in sexual activity that is 'against natural function.', and an example of this is men in sexual union with other men. ")
To me, the core problem is what I find to be a very odd belief (odd to my mind at least) that what we call today the "Bible", which is a set of writings with a long tradition, no doubt, but which *was* compiled over time and some point canonized by men, through their best efforts yet mere men all the same, is a closed book and that we don't do a lot more individual "watching" and "praying" as Jesus instructed us fervently to do, and to come to *know* on a deeply personal level what is meant by the prophet Jeremiah, in chapter 31, about having the law written "on [our] inward parts."
I hope we can all, me included, strip away our need for dogma and tradition, and even the need to have our view of this as we currently now understand it, accepted as "the correct one."
I have had these thoughts arise in my mind as a result of seeking the truth:
(1) It has struck me, in my mind, to be without dispute that sexual activity within the same sex is never referenced positively in the canonized Bible (and how we "chose" our Bible, as I said earlier, is itself an issue for me to ponder), and is basically written about in a negative manner exclusively.
(2) I believe that there is an unhealthy and "unbiblical", if you will, wrong-headed notion among 'traditional' Christians that same-sex affection (a la David and Jonathan) is itself a sin, and should be viewed with suspicion, and that men who choose to have significant male companions (whether married or not) are "gay" and therefore are in sin.
(3) It also seems that God is in constant communication with truth-seekers, and that those who listen with truly open hearts, not holding their own lives and identities (and there are "gay" identities and "religious" identities, equally prevalent) sacrosanct, nor any of their current beliefs about God or their own activities, will begin to manifest God's will for their lives as a matter of course, and won't need the comfort of knowing they are within someone else's expected boundaries, or have the fear that they are stepping outside of 'orthodoxy.'
(4) I have on more than one occasion mused on Acts 11, on the vision Peter had in which he told the Lord he would not eat anything common or unclean, and God reprimanded him *three* times with, "Do not call what I have cleaned, common". What if we are in a similar time, in which that which was previously unclean and abominable (as per Leviticus) is now being cleansed? This was before Peter ministered to *Gentiles*, whom Jesus had characterized as "dogs" in the gospel of Matthew.
For me, the most consistent, honest understanding of all the clobber passages is that the Bible is addressing shrine prostitution, not committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnerships.
That being so, there are NO Biblical passages which condemn committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnerships.
Only by taking the clobber passages out of their cultural, doctrinal, historical, linguistic and religious context can they be made to condemn two gay men who love each other or two lesbian women who love each other and want to spend their lives together.
Talking to anti-gay Christians can be frustrating because they ping pong back and forth between equally inconsistent arguments.
They will admit that, in context, none of the clobber passages is NOT talking about committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnerships.
Then they ping pong back to their Complementarian argument, that since God originally created Adam and Eve, that "proves" God could never affirm Adam and Steve.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/adam-and-eve.html
When it is pointed out that Adam and Eve (one man with one woman for life) did NOT indicate God's prohibition of polygamy (notice Genesis 4:19 where the first polygamous marriage occurs and Deuteronomy 21:15 where God makes provision for inheritance in polygamous marriage situations)
anti-gay Christians then ping pong back to the clobber passages and opine that it is "clear" that God is talking about homosexuality, even though they previously admitted that the context is shrine prostitution, NOT a committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnership.
Ah, the joys of debating the Bible with the brethren...
Rick Brentlinger
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Mission.html
This statement to me seems to sum up my problem with the way in which the "pro-gay" argument is developed:
"For me, the most consistent, honest understanding of all the clobber passages is that the Bible is addressing shrine prostitution, not committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnerships."
Here, we partitioned, outside of the context of the scripture mind you, and I would submit, for our own conveniences perhaps, same-sex unions into acceptable ones ("committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnerships", a categorization that does not exist as defined like this at all in any of the accepted scriptures and on which scripture is strangely silent) and unacceptable ones (the ones which are presumably cultic, unfaithful, or non-committed). This partitioning did not exist at all in scripture, in my thinking.
If this partition existed in reality in Paul's mind, or in any of the other authors of the books of the Bible, why are these acceptable unions never mentioned *at all*? I submit, because at *least at that time*, the writers of scripture quite probably saw any same-sex sexual union *only in that context*, and couldn't conceive of it outside of an idolatrous, cultic context. Hence, Paul argues in this very passage that idolatry, in his mind, *leads* to this kind of "vile affection".
I think it's pretty clear from Romans 1 that Paul (not God, mind you, but Paul) is casting aspersions on same-sex sexuality in general by referring to them as "vile affections" or "degrading passions". Just because he happened to be speaking also in a larger context beyond this does not explain the language he uses to disparage same-sex union itself ("men with men committing indecent acts") as part of a larger argument in which he decries their idolatry (which he says leads to these vile affections), fornication, being full of evil, etc.
I really think the reason why your argument is not convincing to many is because it overreaches and flies in the face of a simple reading of the text, when it is simply not necessary to agree with Paul. Paul is not God. He is not even the Son of God. Even Peter was wrong and had to be corrected (by Paul, Galatians 2:11), and Peter was used mightily of God and under the power of the Holy Spirit, convinced many Jews on the Day of Pentecost, and yet he was and is not infallible. Why should we consider Paul to be infallible?
I believe that only God can judge, and yet, I have a suspicion that Paul's characterization of same-sex could possibly be just short-sighted and not take into account how God can expand the tent, so to speak, while being still just, as he told Peter in Acts 11, "Do not call what I have cleaned, common or unclean." The Jews believed with all their hearts, Peter amongst them even post-Pentecost, that the prohibition against eating certain foods was still in force, and more importantly, that salvation was still for the Jews and not yet (if ever) for the unclean "dogs", the Gentiles.
I disagree with your reasoning in a number of areas.
First, you have simply reworded (however inadvertently) the anti-gay viewpoint of Robert Gagnon which asserts that scripture condemns every same sex partnership without distinguishing between committed faithful non-cultic partnerships and shrine prostitute couplings (Gagnon, The Bible And Homosexual Practice) when you say:
>>>>"we partitioned, outside of the context of the scripture... same-sex unions into acceptable ones... and unacceptable ones... This partitioning did not exist at all in scripture"<<<<
I submit that scripture does differentiate (partition) same sex sexual activity and that this differentiation/partition was recognized by the authors of scripture who wrote about Sodom, by the authors of scripture who alluded to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 and by Jewish rabbis and philosophers like Philo of Alexandria.
All of them focused on shrine prostitution when discoursing on these verses, as did the rabbis whose human wisdom fills the Babylonian Talmud.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Babylonian-Talmud-On-Sodom.html
Further, Dr. Gagnon (THE most ardent anti-gay evangelical alive today) contradicts your assertion on pages 100-110 and 130 of his book when he asserts the primacy of shrine prostitution in ancient Israel and remarks that shrine prostitution was the primary manifestation of homosexual activity in ancient Israel.
Gagnon, the anti-gay crusader, differentiates committed faithful, non-cultic same sex partnerships from the shrine prostitution against which Moses and God inveigh in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.
Second, EVERY human author of scripture who mentions Sodom fails to link Sodom to homosexuality.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Sin-of-Sodom.html
Third, EVERY human author of scripture who alludes to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 links the verses to shrine prostitution or the qadesha (shrine prostitutes).
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Shrine-Prostitutes.html
In attempting to buttress your argument I believe you vastly overreach when you state:
>>>>"I submit, because at *least at that time*, the writers of scripture quite probably saw any same-sex sexual union *only in that context*, and couldn't conceive of it outside of an idolatrous, cultic context."<<<<
Rick Brentlinger
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Repentance.html
Dr. Gagnon's assertion that "shrine prostitution was the primary manifestation of homosexual activity in ancient Israel" and that he differentiates between "faithful, non-cultic same sex partnerships" and shrine prostitution bolsters my argument that the writers of scripture had no vision of "faithful, non-cultic" same sex union, not contradicts it. My point was that you (and perhaps even the "anti-gay" Dr. Gagnon) have created this differentiation that doesn't exist *in scripture* -- the differentiation may exist *outside of scripture*, but where does it exist in scripture?
If there is a differentiation *in scripture*, where are the references to the "faithful, non-cultic same-sex" marriages? I have yet to see them. The silence of scripture on this "other" category of presumably "blessed" same-sex union is non-sensical if the partition/differentiation you claim really did exist in scripture. It is particularly non-sensical if you believe in the sufficiency of the 66 books of the Bible (chosen by man) to forever declare *all* that needs to be said by God, because then your argument of this other cateogry of blessed same-sex union was *never* addressed in scripture, so I fail to see how it can be blessed by your God and your Bible?
In attempting to buttress your argument I believe you vastly overreach when you state:
>>>>"I submit, because at *least at that time*, the writers of scripture quite probably saw any same-sex sexual union *only in that context*, and couldn't conceive of it outside of an idolatrous, cultic context."<<<<
Yet as noted above, NO human author of scripture links the sinful activities of Genesis 19 - Sodom and the sinful activities of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 with committed faithful non-cultic same sex partnerships.
Your assertion that the writers of scripture saw ANY same sex union in the context of idolatry is an opinion, not necessarily an historical fact. The fact is, Jewish rabbis before, during and after the time of Christ, did discuss lesbianism and determined that lesbians are not included in the Levitical prohibitions.
Your next assertion is more opinion, masquerading as fact.
>>>>"Hence, Paul argues in this very passage that idolatry, in his mind, *leads* to this kind of "vile affection"."<<<<
That is your opinion of Paul's argument. In point of fact, Paul's argument is focused on the consequences of idolatry, not an alleged condemnation of gay men and lesbians in Romans 1:26-27.
Paul's argument posits idolatrous same sex activity - worship of the fertility goddess - as the result of idolatry.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-1.html
To read Paul's words as a condemnation of faithful committed non-cultic same sex partnerships is an egregious mis-reading of the scriptures. It assumes "facts" not in evidence and reads into scripture what scripture manifestly does not say.
Aristides, preaching and writing within 70 years of 58 A.D., (when Paul wrote Romans), understood Paul's words to refer to shrine prostitution.
Justin Martyr, writing within 100 years of Paul, understood Paul to be speaking of shrine prostitution.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-And-Shrine-Prostitution.html
You seem to be asserting that:
>>>>"Paul (not God, mind you, but Paul)"<<<<
is the ultimate writer of Romans, a popular but unsubstantiated opinion in our post-Christian age.
I disagree with what I understand you to be saying, since I strongly believe in the God-breathed purity, verbal inspiration, absolute authority, infallibility and inerrancy of scripture.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Scripture.html
>>>>"I really think the reason why your argument is not convincing to many is because it overreaches and flies in the face of a simple reading of the text"<<<<
A text without a context is a pretext for teaching something that is not true.
The overreaching is almost entirely on the side of those who refuse to factor in the context God and Moses addressed in Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 and Romans 1:26-27.
In some cases they acknowledge the context and then insist (as you seem to be doing), that the Bible still condemns committed faithful non-cultic same sex partnerships in these passages DESPITE the context.
Rick Brentlinger
http://www.gaychristian101.com/eDisciples.html
The link you gave me on the authority of scripture states:
"We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words, was given by divine inspiration."
Down to the very words, Rick? Think about this and I ask you to please read on, because my sense has been that you are ignoring the very words and placing above the "very words" this extra-scriptural context. I have no problems with understanding the context and acknowledge it, but it's not overpowering the words themselves.
"Yet as noted above, NO human author of scripture links the sinful activities of Genesis 19 - Sodom and the sinful activities of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 with committed faithful non-cultic same sex partnerships."
They never address at ALL faithful non-cultic same sex partnerships AT ALL *in scripture*, Rick. :) Is this not evidence enough of the inconsistency of your belief in the suffiency of scripture and yet your holding to some differentiation that *does not exist* IN scripture? Your "faithful, non-cultic same-sex" unions simply do not exist in scripture.
"To read Paul's words as a condemnation of faithful committed non-cultic same sex partnerships is an egregious mis-reading of the scriptures. It assumes "facts" not in evidence and reads into scripture what scripture manifestly does not say.
Aristides, preaching and writing within 70 years of 58 A.D., (when Paul wrote Romans), understood Paul's words to refer to shrine prostitution."
I have no quarrel with you that he was referring to shrine prostitution. Again, we are going in circles here... I am merely saying, *read the language itself* and see how in decrying the *activities* of shrine prostitutes, he speaks negatively about the same-sex sexual desire *negatively* itself. If you cannot see this, then you and are I apparently reading vastly different translations, perhaps? I am not reading into the text, rather, I fear in your zeal to "contextualize" you also miss the obvious plain-text reading... if not, then please meditate and comment on this:
26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
What is "the natural function" which Paul references here twice? Why in calling this a "degrading passion" (or "vile affection" as the AV renders it) does he appeal to the natural function in contradiction to men burning in their desire for another and committing indecent acts with each other ("men with men")? For someone who claims to believe in the inerrancy of scripture, I feel you are not speaking at all to the plain-text of the language itself and the word choice of Paul to emphasize "men with men". Why not merely point out that they were fornicating? He does so *later* (verse 29), after he has apparently *chosen* ("inspired" by God and without error??) to emphasize this "men with men" nature of their "unnatural" activity.
trellus asked an excellent question:
>>>> What is "the natural function" which Paul references here twice? <<<<<
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Against-Nature.html
Romans 1:26 says the women changed what was natural into that which is against nature. How would a first century Roman understand those words?
Paul’s first century readers would be more likely to believe against nature referred to shrine prostitution or street prostitution or non-procreative sex. Some of Paul's readers may also have understood Paul to be referring to pederasty or Roman orgies or women having sex with angels or women and men having sex with the gods, all common, first century viewpoints,.
Romans 1:26, “changing the natural use into that which is against nature” may refer to women having sexual relationships with angels or it may be Paul's restatement of the Jewish viewpoint that non-procreative sex between men and women is unnatural.
The sex with angels viewpoint is based on Testament of Naphtali 3:3-5, a book commonly known when Paul wrote Romans. Testament of Naphtali, written around 137-107 BC, provides historical context for Paul's argument in Romans 1.
Dr. Robert Gagnon and his Complementarian Compatriots, allege that when T. Naphtali says
>>>>"changed the order of nature"<<<<
and
>>>>"changed the order of their nature,"<<<<
that refers to homosexuality in general.
As noted below, it is clear in the quote that T. Naphtali refers to interspecies sex (sex with fallen angels) and not to homosexuality in general.
>>>>> "“The Gentiles went astray, and forsook the Lord, and changed their order, and obeyed stocks and stones, spirits of (4) deceit. But ye shall not be so, my children, recognizing in the firmament, in the earth, and in the sea, and in all created things, the Lord who made all things, that ye become not as Sodom, which (5) changed the order of nature.
In like manner the Watchers [fallen angels] also changed the order of their nature, whom the Lord cursed at the flood, on whose account He made the earth without inhabitants and fruitless.”
-Testament of Naphtali, 3:3-5" <<<<<
Rick Brentlinger
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-1-And-Homosexuality.html
This is strange. Throughout this conversation, I seem to be debating folks who disagree but who (for the most part) will not identify themselves. Strange indeed.
The words of scripture are always given in a specific context.
The words of Romans 1 are given in a religious context where women and men worshiped the fertility goddess (in her various iterations) in pagan temples throughout first century Rome.
The words of Romans 1 are given in an historical context. Cybele, the leading fertility goddess in the Roman capital, was honored with five pagan temples in first century Rome.
The words of Romans 1 are given in a cultural context. Christians in Rome, to whom Paul was writing, viewed every day the effects of idolatry and its primary manifestation, shrine prostitution.
Yet in spite of these facts, the anti-gay crowd clings to their belief that scripture, God and Paul himself intended to condemn committed faithful non-cultic same sex partnerships.
You trellus, seem to be assuming that if, in your opinion, scripture does not affirm committed faithful same sex partnerships, then scripture, by its alleged silence, must be condemning those partnerships.
That sandy foundation undergirds the entire anti-gay position.
1. In Genesis 2:24, the anti-gay Complementarity position
http://www.gaychristian101.com/BiblicalComplementarity.html
asserts that since God does not mention Adam and Steve, God must have intended to condemn all same sex partnerships. This view is admitted to be unfaithful to scripture, even by some who hold it.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/adam-and-eve.html
2. In Genesis 19, anti-gay Complementarians assert that the destruction of Sodom indicates God's extreme displeasure with homosexuality. This view is admitted to be unfaithful to scripture, even by some anti-gay evangelicals who hold it in spite of what scripture says.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Sodom.html
3. In Romans 1:26-27, anti-gay Complementarians assert that scripture condemns all lesbian partnerships and all gay partnerships, without exception and without distinction.
Their Complementarian view of Genesis 2:24 is the lens through which they view Romans 1:26-27.
The anti-gay crowd then attempts to rebut gays who disagree by positing that Paul's nature argument addresses male-female complementarity.
The anti-gay position assumes that Rom 1:26 addresses lesbianism without any proof to support that position. The majority view of early Christians was that "against nature" referred to women having non-procreative sex with men, not non-procreative sex with women.
The anti-gay position assumes that Rom 1:27 primarily addresses same sex male partnerships (instead of shrine prostitution) while giving lip service to the possibility that 1:27 addresses shrine prostitution while insisting in the next breath that Paul's:
(a) word choice indicates he was condemning same sex partnerships and his
(b) Jewish worldview compels the conclusion he was condemning same sex partnerships.
Those arguments do not fit the context.
Rick Brentlinger
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-And-Shrine-Prostitution.html
Rick,
First... I do not want you to feel that you are speaking to someone who is mysteriously unidentifiable. That is strange, indeed. I just happened to pick a name that I go by as a "screen name" when I signed up to participate in this discussion. If there had been, in the sign-up process, a place to put my full name, location, and even an URL, I would have happily submitted:
Timothy Garcia
Dallas, TX
Age: 33
http://www.myspace.com/trellusg
I have written a number of blogs on my MySpace, so you can get some context about me, if that makes you feel less like you're speaking to a mysterious shadow. :D They're not all about... this topic by any means, but some of them do touch on it because I am who I am, and that is, a man who has for much of his life identified as "gay" and, while I do not really care for labels, people still need them.
You said:
"You trellus, seem to be assuming that if, in your opinion, scripture does not affirm committed faithful same sex partnerships, then scripture, by its alleged silence, must be condemning those partnerships."
I understand your reaching that conclusion, but it is not so. There is a reason why I am have not "picked a side" officially in this "Is homosexuality a sin?" question that poses itself each time I post. :)
I am not saying that scripture through its silence on what you call "faithful, non-cultic same-sex partnerships" -- and it is not "alleged silence", bur rather actual silence in the absence of any scriptures affirming them, and you have not provided these (please do so in your response or you can surely see how I conclude that it is not "alleged" but actual) -- but rather I am saying that the words themselves of Paul in this particular passage speaks negatively on the "men with men" aspect itself, which you seem to not acknowledge. A dispassionate re-reading of 1:27 will strike you with the "men with men" word-choice of Paul and gives you a picture of what Paul thought of "men with men", at least.
Re: the question of the "women" in 1:26, you will note that I have purposely been pretty silent on "lesbianism", frankly because, when I read, 1:26, I *noted* the difference in word selection between 1:26 (which does not say "women with women") and 1:27 (which does say "men with men"). I read that before your last post to me which points this out, and honestly, I was struck by how that could mean something else besides what we think of as "lesbianism", including perhaps what you claim early Christians read it as. I did not need to know that, incidentally, but came to that conclusion on my own by merely reading the text. Ironically, I do not believe in inerrancy of scripture, but I do believe in honesty of Scripture and I believe that Paul spoke precisely as he could within his limitations as a man, and I believe that his choice of words *is* important and tells us something. I stand by my assertion that his choosing "men with men" as being against nature and indecent is what he meant.
On the other hand, because he does not specifically address what he precisely what he meant by "men with men", you are incorrect that I assume that God (or even Paul, if he were today and speaking in the power of the Holy Spirit) would condemn "faithful, non-cultic, committed same-sex partnerships". I certainly do not, because I do not condemn at all; first, there is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ -- and being in Christ doesn't mean being without sin (1 John 1:8) -- and it is the Holy Spirit that convicts, not a philosophical or intellectual argument.
Without getting into the specifics of some particular couple's particular arrangement, I could not possibly even know what "faithful, non-cultic committed" means to them. I would not wish to, because it is enough of a job to "examine myself" as Paul exhorted us all to do, rather than be examining someone else.
I feel that "lesbianism" is pretty much ignored completely in scripture, certainly I have not found anything that speaks about hardly at all, except possibly Romans 1:26 and I can see merely by comparing it with 1:27 that it is hardly an unambiguous reference to it. A reading of 1:26 that minimizes the "lesbian" aspect to me is not "incorrect" because it would be consistent with the lack of prohibition in Leviticus, for example, which speaks of "man lie with a man" but is oddly silently about "woman lie with a woman".
Thank you Timothy. You are no longer mysteriously unidentifiable.
You asked for scripture which affirms faithful non-cultic same sex partnerships. I believe the exquisite detail God provides about the Jonathan and David partnership is scripture affirming faithful committed non-cultic same sex partnerships.
The intimate partnership of Jonathan with David is more fully and carefully described than perhaps any other human partnership in scripture. And God made sure to include King Saul's assessment of their partnership which indicates sexual intimacy (at least in Saul's opinion).
As far as Paul's "men with men" phrase in Romans 1:27, one can certainly take that to be a negative blast against homosexuality:
IF one ignores the literary context of Paul's argument against idolatry and
IF one ignores the cultural, historical and religious context Paul addressed in first century Rome.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-And-Shrine-Prostitution.html
Since there is nothing to indicate that Paul intended to aim his comments at faithful committed non-cultic male-male partnerships (those were not a prominent and troublesome feature of life in first century Rome), we stray into the realm of mere opinion when we insist, contra the context, that Paul intended his readers to understand that he was decrying faithful committed non-cultic male-male partnerships.
The text and context of Romans does not support that conclusion.
>>>> On the other hand, because he does not specifically address what he precisely... meant by "men with men", <<<<
Since Paul's argument is tightly focused on Gentile and Jewish idolatry, it perfectly fits his argument to understand that the illustrations Paul uses in his argument match his argument against idolatry.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Cult-Prostitutes.html
Committed faithful non-cultic male-male partnerships do not match Paul's argument against idolatry therefore it is reasonable to conclude that those are not what Paul is describing.
You have conceded that Romans 1:26 is not necessarily directed at lesbians. That being true, carefully note the wording of Romans 1:27.
"Likewise also the men..."
Paul's argument equates what the women were doing with what the men were doing. If as you concede, Paul was not directing 1:26 against lesbians, then 1:27 is not directed against gay men who partner.
It better fits Paul's argument to understand that 1:26 describes female shrine prostitutes and "likewise also the men" in 1:27 describes male shrine prostitutes.
Rick Brentlinger
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Christs-Bride.html
The manner in which you are reading the scriptures seems very narrow to my mind -- this is evidenced by your claim that the words "men with men" can only be interpreted as having some wider meaning when context is ignored. The words and the word choice have meaning in themselves. Context cannot erase the plain-text choice of words. It is very telling, just by his choice of words not being random but rather carefully chosen, that he describes the manifestation of the "vile affection" differently for women than for men, and he describes the manifestation in men as "men with men". You are saying that the reason they are "tied together" with "likewise" is that he is only speaking of this context of sexual union in this particular context -- and this context t is absent the actual scripture itself but I agree is important. But this context can not be important than the text itself; certainly to weigh outside text or "context" higher than the plain words themselves seems out of step with the "solo scriptura" crowd.
I agree that to condemn "faithful, non-cultic same sex partnership" is to add extra-scriptural condemnation that does not exist in the scriptures. That is why I do not condemn same-sex partnerships. On the other hand, the absence of ANY confirmed (and blessed) sexual union between men (or between women) in the scriptures would lead me to believe that either the scripture is incomplete (anathema to you, I know, but not to me, because I don't believe in dispensations or that inspiration in written form has been cemented as of particular time), or that the scriptures don't condemn "same-sex partnerships", but have never blessed same-sex sexual intercourse, and that's the critical difference.
The love between David and Jonathan was not a same-sex partnership fashioned after marriage, but indeed, David describes his love for Jonathan as *surpassing* the love of women, which is really an entirely awesome statement for one to reflect on. I suspect the "anti-gay" crowd feels uncomfortable thinking any love can surpass heterosexual marriage love. I suspect the "pro-gay" crowd takes some mistaken comfort in thinking that their same-sex partnerships are "equal" to heterosexual marriages, when in fact, they are not comparable.
For example, Matthew 27:5 tells us Judas "went and hanged himself."
Jesus said in Luke 10:37, "Go and do thou likewise."
Without factoring in context, we could conclude that Jesus is commanding us to commit suicide. Of course, based on context, we know that is a silly conclusion.
The words of scripture are always given in a context which explains, augments, develops, limits and/or helps to define their meaning.
I'll attempt one more explanation as to why Romans 1:26-27 is not addressing homosexuality in general.
Fact # 1 - The Old Testament never condemns lesbians and never prohibits lesbian partnerships. Therefore there is no basis in Jewish Law to condemn female homosexuality.
"Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression." - Romans 4:15
For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed where there is no law." - Romans 5:13
It makes no sense to argue that Paul intended Romans 1:26 as a condemnation of lesbianism since neither the Law nor the Old Testament condemned or prohibited lesbianism.
The people scripture condemns in Romans 1:26-27 (a) rejected God, (b) refused to worship God and (c) worshiped idols.
If you are a born again gay Christian, trusting Jesus Christ as your personal Savior, you have not rejected God, you have not refused to worship God and you are not worshiping idols. Therefore, you are not included in the group of people Romans 1:26-27 condemns.
Fact # 2 - The apostle Paul was a Jewish legal expert who knew Jewish Law backwards and forwards.
Fact # 3 - The apostle Paul based what he believed on the Old Testament, Jewish Law and what God showed him by revelation.
Fact # 4 - Since Jewish Law and Rabbinic law did not condemn lesbians or link lesbianism to idolatry, there is absolutely no reason to assume that Paul is condemning lesbianism in Romans 1:26.
Fact # 5 - Paul's closely reasoned argument against idolatry (note that he is NOT arguing against homosexuality - Paul mentions same sex shrine prostitution as an example of idolatry) compares what the women were doing in v. 26 with what the men were doing in v. 27.
Fact # 6 - If Paul is not condemning lesbianism in Romans 1:26 then Paul is not condemning male homosexuality in Romans 1:27.
Fact # 7 - What Paul condemns in Romans 1:26-27 is idolatry, the shrine prostitution which was common in first century Rome.
Rick Brentlinger
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Who-Is-Jesus.html
Your statement:
"If you are a born again gay Christian, trusting Jesus Christ as your personal Savior, you have not rejected God, you have not refused to worship God and you are not worshiping idols. Therefore, you are not included in the group of people Romans 1:26-27 condemns."
Are you telling me that it is not possible for sin to continue to mar the life of a "born again Christian"? If you read Romans 1 the way it is written, the acts in 1:27 are not in conjuction with idol worship but rather as a consequence of idol worship; therefore, one need not conclude that a man with same-sex desire or committing 'indecent acts' with other man is engaging in active 'idol worship' (i.e., shrine prostitution), but according to Paul, this desire comes from rejection of God. I dare say that until one grows to the "full stature of Christ", that there will be elements in each of us that are sinful, and all sin is merely a consequence of past rejection of God by us and our ancestors (learned habits can be sinful), and we are cleansed from sin as we become aware of it, as the Spirit convicts us and *we* see it and repent of it. This is an ongoing process (see 1 John).
The problem with your argument, trellus is that "the acts described" ARE acts of pagan temple worship. God didn't "give them over" to establishing committed, monogamous, loving relationships with a same-gender spouse. The acts described in Romans 1 are specifically acts of depravity and are deliberately described in the context of idolatry and pagan rites.
Sure, if you want to read Romans 1 out of context, you can ignore the references to the pagan temple orgies which were common at the time and which clearly Paul would have condemned. But equally clearly, Paul was not describing people who lived circumspect, holy lives in committed, monogamous, loving relationship to a spouse of their own gender.
I can see where you might misunderstand, though, if you just think of all gay people as depraved, immoral, lustful, promiscuous, unthinking, unfaithful, godless heathens. It's pretty easy to judge people when you dehumanize them.
Taking two different scriptures written by two different authors in two different books and putting them together as in your extreme example is one thing; reading a single passage without historical context is not the same thing; it is only tenuously related by the concept of "context". I appreciate the argument on context, but it is still relatively weak when the "historical context" must weigh so heavily as to make the words themselves in context of the scripture itself less important than the supposed "qualifiers" and "restrictions" placed on the words by this *outward* context.
Let's say I'm rather new to the scriptures; I can read the story of the great Samaritan in Luke 10 and get a sense of Jesus' "theology" or "ethic" just by reading that. I might think, "Wow, all those people passed up this poor fellow who needed help, and so the answer to 'who is my neighbor' in 'love your neighbor as yourself' is, 'the one whom I see that needs love, right in front of me.'" This is all contained right there in the story in Luke 10. I don't need to understand the relationship between the Samaritans and the Jews to get this idea; however, I would find even more wisdom in this scripture if I did, but this wisdom is in addition to that which I have already attained with a simple reading; it is additive, and not contradicting the earlier wisdom.
So, looking again at Romans 1, if reading this chapter *requires* this "context" *beforehand* that this *must* only be talking about shrine prostitution, even though Paul doesn't explicitly state that it is only talking about shrine prostitution it is a rather shockingly loose and radical way to interpret scripture to me. Such an approach to reading the scriptures smacks to me of the way the Roman Catholic Church used to approach (may still, don't know) reading scripture, discouraging parishioners from reading passages without the guidance of someone 'learned', i.e., a priest, lest they come to a conclusion not in keeping with accepted church doctrine.
I don't believe in the "inerrancy" of scripture, yet ironically, I feel that the way I approach scripture is with more reverence for each word (meditating on word choice to grasp meaning more fully, because I *do* believe that the words were *inspired*) than it seems the approach you are embracing for this passage, which seems to be, 'you need to read this pre-packaged outside commentary first so that you view this passage through the correct lens'. I believe the approach that is correct is, to read the words; let the Spirit speak to us through them. Reading them later in context of other scripture and, to a lesser extent, historical context (unless you believe the historical texts you are referencing to be *equally* inspired) will never go against the initial sense you got from the words themselves; however, you may be surprised at how much more wisdom and knowledge is in those words.
I suspect that if I gave Romans 1 to someone not familiar with Christian theology, or with either "side" in this debate, would still have this sense:
(1) Paul is speaking mostly about idolatry and rejection of God and its consequences
(2) Paul mentions that as a *consequence* of this rejection of God, people will begin to dishonor their bodies amongst themselves
(3) Paul uses as an example of this dishonoring of their bodies, 'women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural', whatever that means.
(4) Paul says that 'in the same way' (that does not mean the parallelism you are making, necessarily, but could be referring instead to the *characterization* that it is similarly against natural function), 'the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts.'
It is not difficult to come to this conclusion, and I submit that it is the most obvious one, from this passage, that Paul is saying that men 'abandoning' the 'natural function of the woman' and burning in their desires for their own sex, commit 'indecent acts' with each other. This is a strongly worded indictment of sexual desire and sexual union between men by Paul. The fact that he is using it in the context of describing idolatry does not weaken or restrict the application, but rather it widens it. He is precisely making the point that this desire and act arose from a rejection of God, through idolatry.
That is interesting. I am going to forward this to a friend of mine and see what he says. He is a Jewish Theologian and Historian. I wander if he will agree with what is said about those verses. It should be interesting should he join the discussion.
I am convinced many anti-gay Christians intentionally misrepresent what the Bible says. Its not difficult to discover what Jewish believers wrote and taught about shrine prostitutes thousands of years ago.
But since ancient Jewish teaching does not fit with current anti-gay teaching in so many churches, they prefer to ignore the truth or misrepresent it, hoping no one will notice.
NEWSFLASH!!! We've noticed!!!
Ancient Jewish writers frequently linked same sex shrine prostitution with the prohibitions in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.
For example, every passage in the Bible which is alleged to prohibit same sex partnerships, when read in doctrinal or historical context, is always referring to shrine prostitution.
The human authors of the Bible did this intentionally because they were not referring to homosexuality in general and they most assuredly were not referring to female-female partnerships since those partnerships are never prohibited in the Old Testament.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Pagan-practices.html
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Shrine-Prostitutes.html
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Molech.html
Philo, the Alexandrian Jewish writer was a contemporary of Jesus and the Apostle Paul. Philo believed that Moses' use of arsenos koiten in Leviticus 20:13 referred to shrine prostitution.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Beastiality.html
God bless you in your search for truth.
Rick Brentlinger
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Saved.html