Pericles (10.24am, 10/4),

You’re right in your first two sentences, of course, and your comment illustrates the complete lack of logic in the gay marriage push. For a group of people to claim to want the thing they are allowed to have – marriage - but do not really want when what they really want is to use the name of the thing they don’t want to describe the thing they do want is bizarre, but not as bizarre as the amount of coverage this issue gets, especially in The Age. If OLO worked like other sites, the following would make sense:

<a href= http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/550489.aspx?PageIndex=68 >Gay</a>

<a href= http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/550489.aspx?PageIndex=69 >marriage</a>

<a href= http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/550489.aspx?PageIndex=69 >is</a>

<a href= http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/550489.aspx?PageIndex=81 >as</a>

<a href= http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/550489.aspx?PageIndex=82 >silly</a>

<a href= http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/550489.aspx?PageIndex=93 >as</a>

<a href= http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/550489.aspx?PageIndex=105 >carnivorous</a>

<a href= http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/550489.aspx?PageIndex=160 > vegetarianism, </a>

<a href= http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/550489.aspx?PageIndex=161 >logically</a>

<a href= http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/550489.aspx?PageIndex=165 >and</a>

<a href= http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/550489.aspx?PageIndex=165 >linguistically</a>

<a href= http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/550489.aspx?PageIndex=175 >speaking. </a>

Chris C be honest, you do not like homosexuals, which is an interesting observation, from a sociology point of view!

Sodom was known for its sexual perversions and arrogant wickedness, and in the NT a sodomite is identified as a male having sexual intercourse with another male 1 Timothy 1: 10, Jude 7. In 1 Corinthians 6: 9 the Greek word is arseokites [sex up the arse] and combined with malakos refers to an effeminate male. It is a man who acts in place of a woman for anal sex. Such acts are not part of the approved rule under God. Homosexuality has never been approved by the Bible and in NT Greek times homosexuality was practiced by the adherents of Juno who were male prostitutes for men.

Men in Biblical times had multiple wives as there were more women than men due to wars. It was never the opposite a woman having several husbands, as this was adultery, unless her husband was dead.

This vain attempt to justify that God, the Bible and the Church approve of homosexual marriage has absolutely no Biblical foundation. Otherwise prove it from Biblical text and history.

1 Corinthian 6: 9, “Know ye not that the unrighteous [Gk 94 unjust] shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators [Gk 4205 a man who gives his body to pleasure another man], nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate {Gk 3120 soft to touch], nor abusers of themselves with mankind {Gk 733 a man who has sexual intercourse with another man”.

Some of the converts in Corinth were previously adherents of Juno before coming to Christ, verse 11. Now they are clean of such practice.

Those who claim to speak on behalf of God had better put up a credible textual argument

"Whoever does any work on the Sabbath, shall be put to death"

Exodus 35:2

So tell me Josephus, why should I pay attention to what God said.
I have no intention of putting anyone to death.

THIS IS GOD SPEAKING. JOSEPHUS - THE BIBLE ISN'T ALL IT'S CRACKED UP TO BE. I DIDN'T WRITE FIRST CORINTHIANS. IT WAS WRITTEN BY PAUL. A MERE MORTAL. MY HOLY WORD SUPERSEDES ANY OF PAUL'S WRITINGS - UNLESS YOU WANT TO GO TO HELL. AND I'M COOL WITH GAYS. WHY WOULD I CREATE THEM IF I DIDN'T LIKE THEM?

Hello again Josephus,

One thing you have written is true:

“Those who claim to speak on behalf of God had better put up a credible textual argument.”

Josephus, you have been called on your claim: “Sodom was known for the unclean practise of anal sex between men.” We have countered that there is no evidence for this whatsoever - inside Scripture or outside.

This is a myth based on the attempted gang rape story. The term 'sodomy' in the Bible is a reference to rape. Nothing to do with faithful consensual unions.

It is now for you to validate your assertion.

Now, I will call you on two further assertions which scholars believe are false:

1. “in the NT a sodomite is identified as a male having sexual intercourse with another male 1 Timothy 1:10, Jude 7.”

What evidence is there that these refer to all same-sex unions? How do you refute the claim that these relate to abusive or adulerous same-sex practices - which existed then as now?

2. “In 1 Corinthians 6:9 the Greek word is arseokites (sic) [sex up the arse] and combined with malakos refers to an effeminate male. It is a man who acts in place of a woman for anal sex.”

What evidence is there that these references are to all same-sex unions? How do you refute the claim that ‘arsenokoites’ refers specifically to abusive behaviour, or same-sex crimes?

Note your own translation, Josephus: “abusers of themselves with mankind”!

Why not accept the plain reading that this refers to abusive homosexual acts – just as the first part of the text refers to abusive heterosexual acts?

If the first part of the text does not condmen ALL heterosexual unions, why claim the second part condemns ALL homosexual unions?

“This vain attempt to justify that God, the Bible and the Church approve of homosexual marriage has absolutely no Biblical foundation. Otherwise prove it from Biblical text and history.”

Josephus, you show us Biblical or other validation for your claims, and we will gladly show you the same-sex unions in Scripture blessed by God.

Cheers, AA