Alan Austin,
In Hebrew thought marriage was essential for keeping records of children. In Genesis 5: 1 – 2 we have the blessing of the union of male and female as a single unit of “man” as it relates to their children. The concept of adultery only related to the wife as she could bear the adulterous seed of other than her husband. In Jewish and Christian thought marriage was always and exclusively between a man and a woman; a Bridegroom and a Bride, a husband and a wife, a man and a woman [womb man].
Leviticus 18: 6 – 30 clearly defines those one could have sexual intercourse with, and with whom one should not. Anal intercourse with another man is strictly forbidden in Jewish society
The Greek word used for marriage in the NT is “gameo” where a father gives his daughter to a young man to have legitimate and socially accepted sexual intercourse. The Greek word arseokites forbidden in the NT is clear, meaning arse sex as the word states. Koite used by itself means sexual intercourse i.e. marriage. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7: 36 – 39 seems to encourage celibacy for the aged virgin. In Hebrews 13: 1 – 4 again we are to abstain from sexual immorality. Never has homosexuality been considered as marriage.
You make the claim that the “Bible teaches clearly that a range of marriage options is available to faithful believers”.
GIVE EVIDENCE!
I will be circulating your claims; “There is no support for this statement [my claim - “Only a man and a woman can mate to naturally produce children, which is the ordained state and purpose of marriage.”]
of the purpose of marriage anywhere in Scripture, is there? Some churches have taught this falsehood at different stages in history. But today many of them are recognising it is just wrong.” to Catholic, Orthodox Jewish, Reformed, Baptist, Church of Christ, Assemblies of God seminaries for evaluation. Obviously you endeavour to discredit history and Biblical text.

For the irreligious, Alan is claiming to represent a Biblical view for homosexual marriage.

Yes, as said, you are clearly incapable of reasoned debate *Josephus* and incapable of refuting the many well presented arguments that have been put here.

..

Australia's first independent denomination has long sanctified the union of gay people, and certainly they interpret quite differently to you and they are but one religious group who does so. Are they perhaps heretics in your view? Or, as a bigot, do you simply not respect the religious views of others to the extent that they contradict your own?

..

Having said that though, whilst you are entitled to your pathetic, concrete headed believes, if you continue to attempt to violate the rights of others, I strongly suspect that in the future there will be serious consequences for it.

You have no right to demand that others conform to your views and interpretations regarding marriage and sexual practice except in your own delusional, obstinate and wilful mind.

I think tonight that I will caste my seed upon the ground. Is that something also that you would foolishly attempt to forbid me from doing?

DreamOn,
As in the Biblical case of Onan, if your new wife wishes to fall pregnant with her first and only child and you refuse then you deserve her wrath.

If you think abuseive name calling is logical debate then you indeed are small minded.

The debate is over *Joesphus* You have lost, have no power and deserve to be abused because of the suffering the likes of you bring upon the vulnerable.

As for my wife, unlike you, who whilst having an Islamic (non practising)upbringing, is not a homophobic, bigotted, old fool.

You do not know what you are talking about.

We make Luv for pleasure, as is our choice consistent with our rights and especially for me assists in the reduction of certain over abundant neurochemicals. Having a higher libido, I often caste my seed upon the ground, and have always very much enjoyed it.

As for children, I am not so keen for a number of reasons (including but not limited to a possible genetic risk), though admittedly, my wife is very keen. But it will only be allowed to occur when their is mutual consent, (though an accident could happen) such is the nature of our relationship. To be honest, I would be just as happy to adopt one, but here again, admittedly, my BeLoved is not in agreeance, though not because she is opposed to adoption, but because her Heart greatly desires a child which has something of the 2 of us within.

However, that is a matter for us, and not in anyway the domain of homophobic, bigoted old fools and your faerie tale believes.

Because truly, you do not know unless you can perhaps relay an experience of an encounter with your dead man god? If not, then it is merely a belief, to which you are entitled, but not to the extent that you wish to inflict it on others.

You see, for 2 gays in Luv, you would I suspect with legal force seek to keep them apart and relegate them to 2nd class citizens. Thus, if there is a backlash, and you suffer for it, as far as I am concerned, you have no one to blame other than yourself.

How many young people have suicided and are down caste and in sorrow due in no small part to the infliction of misguided clap trap?

Isn't it just as well, Josephus, that scriptural interpretation has no place in setting the laws in a modern secular democratic society – otherwise there'd be real confusion.

I think it's only fair you acknowledge that everything you say about text before Genesis chapter 34 is pure speculation. Unless I've missed something, that is the first occasion marriage is mentioned – you know, the bit where Hamor talks about giving and taking daughters and other trade related issues.

The next mention of marriage occurs in Exodus 21 – some rules about taking a second wife…

In any event my concordance search only found 21 mentions of marriage between Genesis and Revelation. Five in the old Testament, 16 in the New (and two of those were in Revelation and seem to refer to the marriage of the Lamb; whom I'd always been told, was Jesus who is God, which is really a bit odd as a concept of marriage).

In summary, none of these mentions proscribed same-sex marriage.

It doesn't seem a difficult task for God to have been clear if he had thought it important enough to disapprove.

No doubt you'll tell us where we are in error. Though I'd rather hear it from God himself – just to be sure we weren't getting it wrong, again.

Hi Josephus,

Re: “Judaism, Christianity, and Islam only sexual intercourse define their married relationship difference.”

These faiths have often misapplied Scripture. Last month a Moroccan girl suicided because the Old Testament instructs her to marry her rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).

Re: “Never has the sexual relationship of two persons of the same gender given the result of the blessing of children.”

Same-sex couples in most gregarious bird and animal societies rear orphaned offspring. IVF now enables fertilisation. The children do really well.

Re: ”Leviticus 18:6–30 clearly defines those one could have sexual intercourse with ... Anal intercourse with another man is strictly forbidden in Jewish society.”

No. The first 20 verses of Chapter 18 deal with intercourse. Then the topic shifts. Verse 21 deals with ritual worship of Molech. This continues to the end of the chapter.

Hence Leviticus 18:22 condemns prostitution in Satanic worship. Not any other activity.

This is even clearer in Leviticus 20.

If you want to be strict, you could say these verses condemn all same-sex prostitution - or all sexual activity in Satanic worship. But you cannot claim they prohibit all same-sex relationships.

Re: “The Greek word arseokites forbidden in the NT is clear, meaning arse sex as the word states.”

No. The term means same-sex offences - coercive, abusive and criminal behaviour. It does not mean all anal sex.

Re: “Never has homosexuality been considered as marriage.”

Again, your use of ‘homosexuality’ is a category error. Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is a sexual orientation.

Re: “You make the claim that the “Bible teaches clearly that a range of marriage options is available to faithful believers”. GIVE EVIDENCE!”

Abundant evidence of the approval of polygamous relationships was ‘Posted by Alan Austin, Friday, 13 April 2012 6:28:46 PM,’ above.

The New Testament clearly teaches celibacy as preferred over marriage. The Bible contains several examples of approved same-sex intimate relationships.

Re: “Obviously you endeavour to discredit history and Biblical text.”

Not at all, Jospehus. Just urging us to read and understand both appropriately – not in the distorted, homophobic way many churches have done in recent decades.