Alan Austin,
Nice try to justify homosexual marriage on close friendships. However David had legitimate wives, which indicates he did not have sex with Jonathan. The fact he sought Bathsheba and not Jonathan indicates his real sexual desires. His confidence in Jonathan was because Saul Jonathan's father wanted to kill David; this was a cause for weeping. They would now be separated from the Kings court. If you are gay or had gay tendencies and you prefer men, would you be more attracted to a Bathsheba?

I hug and kiss my 4 brothers when we meet [which maybe more than one year], this does not indicate we have sexual desires.

Ruth had lost a husband, the son of Naomi, and on Ruth's advice sought a husband in Boaz. She had a natural attraction to men. To suggest Ruth had a lesbian relationship with Naomi destroys the character of both, as no such sexual encounter is even suggested.

You have a long way to go to be considered a serious theological student. When you imply that Philip saw the Eunuch as potential sexual or as even a marriage partner demeans the textual meaning. You may wish to change the Orthodox Churches so you fit in, but it would be more appropriate to start your own unaffiliated brand. Please be honest if you are using the Biblical text.

True Christians love all as Christ loved all, but that does not mean in the slightest we marry all or have sex with all. It is peculiar that some here using that text find it hard to love orthodox Christians.

Dream on said, "you deserve to be abused because of the suffering the likes of you bring upon the vulnerable". Why is it essential that their relationship be considered as marriage? People live together and they do not feel abused - such a claim of abuse is nonsense. More people commit suicide over being rejected by a lover than for a close friendship.

Hi Josephus,

Some clarifications briefly:

Re: “David had legitimate wives, which indicates he did not have sex with Jonathan.”

No. In those days love, sex and marriage were not connected as today. Solomon, for example, with 700 wives and 300 concubines probably never had sex with most wives.

Also, I suggested “people with same-sex or bisexual orientation” we would find in Scripture. There is a spectrum. These couples were probably what we would call bi.

Re: “His confidence in Jonathan was because Saul Jonathan's father wanted to kill David.”

Yes. But why was Saul so wrathful? We don’t know. But there is a clue: “your own shame and the shame of the mother who bore you."

Re: “To suggest Ruth had a lesbian relationship with Naomi destroys the character of both.”

The suggestion derives from the term ‘dabaq’ – to cleave. That’s the key word in Genesis 2:24 often used to refer to the sexual component in marriage. It's used again only twice to describe relationships between two individuals – Ruth and Naomi, and Shechem and Dinah. It is also used with Solomon and his many wives.

Hence it may be the author's purpose to confirm God’s delight in variations.

Re: “When you imply that Philip saw the Eunuch as potential sexual or as even a marriage partner”

Not implying anything. Just posing the obvious questions. Certainly not suggesting a relationship between Philip and the Ethiopian.

Re: “You have a long way to go to be considered a serious theological student.”

True. Just a mug journo, Josephus. But part of the job is to sift words, context, nuances and then try to assign likely meaning. It is an inexact science even with sources today – let alone from an ancient foreign culture.

“Please be honest if you are using the Biblical text.”

Definitely. But trying to understand it as God intends. Remember, there is a vast list of interpretations down through the ages that the Church has got badly wrong – and has had to change its doctrines and apologise.

This could be the one for our generation, Josephus. No?

Greetings again,

Holidays here, so away for a few days.

Meanwhile, this may be of interest:
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/20763.htm

A bientôt,
AA

Yes, I have heard it said that *John the BeLoved* may have been beloved for more reason than one.

;-)

..

Now, what about *Mary* then? Is it true that she sucked <snip> for the Roman guards for a feed whilst afflicted before J.C. healed and cleansed her? And, did he then not take her as a *Lover* in body and Soul?

..

Peter I have heard couldn't quite get his head around this one, and I suspect that J.C. must have been a veritable magnet when it came to the girls and likely to have had more picks than you'd get in a candy shop, whilst traveling from place to place, preaching and repairing the local agricultural equipment etc etc as they went.

..

It is well known that many young budding homosexuals have been repressed, abused, drugged and mistreated, resulting in suicide, at the hands of the Church of the Rock Spider and others, not to mention the cover up of pedophilia (a matter which is ongoing) the theft of children and babies and the list goes on.

The main stream political churches are absolute filth and deserving of contempt and corporal punishment i.m.o. (for those to whom it applies) along with their disbandment and confiscation of their assets. In that regard, I believe that Henry the VIII is not entirely devoid of merit.

..

All things said and done, whether the scripture support it or not is besides the pint, as clearly some religions do. If we are to have freedom of religion and no forced religion along with equality of rights then that ends the matter. Gays are to be permitted to marry with the same rights as everyone else.

..

As said though, the likes of *Josephus* and *Runner* are homophobic, bigoted fools who have no tolerance for the believes of others and as history attests, there type of mentality in principal is in no small way responsible for all manner of atrocities and wars.

Josephus, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 8:14:58 AM

A sexual union can occur without marriage. It can occur with female consent or without. If you have even a glancing look at history, you'll see marriage was as much a transfer of property as anything else. It was a right for a male to impregnate the woman exclusively.
Marriage has evolved into a consensual, mutual commitment of two adults to each other.

As for unclean practises such as sodomy, 2,500 years ago when these stories were made up, there probably was some health issue linked to it. Kind of the same as shellfish can make you sick if a bit old and is also not allowed.
Useful stuff like washing your hands before you ate are curiously absent.
As for your anecdotes about aids, I don't doubt it. As we know, AIDS is not a gay issue. It is a promiscuity issue. Have unprotected sex with multiple partners, and your chances of contracting AIDS, gay or straight.
I'd argue that if gays were able to be more open and be able to commit to each other in the same way heater couples do, there would be a reduction in STDs in the gay community.

In this day and age, people do not simple marry as a record of a property transfer or just for procreation. They marry as a symbol of commitment to each other. A heater couple, who medically, are unable to have children have a right to marry. They marry for commitment. There is no difference to allowing those people to marry when they cannot procreate and a gay couple who cannot procreate.
In the end, you thought patterns aren't your own. They are the product of highly uneducated levantines from thousands of years ago.

The rest of us live in the 21st century CE, not 1500 BCE.

PS.Your immediate understanding of adultery is sexist in the extreme. Men commit adultery too.
PPS. Again, I notice the sexism on focusing on male gay sex, ignoring female gay sex.

BAC,
Fact 1. anul sex is unclean and increases risk of rupture and diseases the body excreates. Mostly practised by men and exclusively by homosexual men.
Fact 2. to adulterate something it to mix two substances. This can only happen if two men eject sperm into the same womb. Whose Child is it if children result? who takes responsibility for the child?.