Appreciate the explanation, Josephus… That make sense now that I know the words exclusive, lifelong, mutual and wife don't have the meanings normally applied to them.

I don't know who is attempting to dumb down society, but obviously more than sacred things can be meaningless.

Though I bet David's wife – all six or was it seven of her – are grateful he ignored Nathan and the rabbis, otherwise there could have been eighteen 'wife'.

A stretch for King David of more than just his or your imagination. And I presume no room in the marriage bed for petting of any description.

Alan Austin,
You havent proven textually that David's relationship to Jonathan was of a sexual nature and it therefore verifies a married relationship.

Again it shows shallow research on your part. Romans 1: 24 - 27 gives the Christian position on perversion of human sexuality.

Ro:1:24: Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Ro:1:25: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Ro:1:26: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Ro:1:27: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error.

There is no suggestion of rape or violence in this text, it is mutual affection. We are talking about an emotional bonding here being unnatural, and causing ill recompence.

Well, it seems quite plain to me that the 2 persons (assumably) that write under the aliases of *Runner* and *Josephus* are homophobic bigots.

If the 2 of you practice a religion that does not condone or sanctify the unions of gay people that is fine. I have no problem with people having a particular belief.

Verily, if you want to believe in *Satan* that too is also fine with me.

Where it becomes a problem in my view is when you wish to have everyone conform to your own narrow believes, for example, assuming virgins must submit for drugging and blood sacrifice in the case of certain historical if not current *Satan* worshippers, or that gays are not to be permitted to marry.

I suspect that both these 2 bigots well know that there are branches of Christianity and others who are fine with gay union and the sanctification thereof.

Thus, you are both bigotted to the extent that you have no respect for other religious views other than your own, thus making you bigots.

And do spare us any clap trap about the necessity of "preaching the word" to the extent of imposing (and in that by voting on mass for those politicians who will legislate your own personal form of morality) your moral views on those who do not wish to participate in them.

History shows us that this form of bigoted, ignorant, obstinacy is heavily implicated in some of the most terrible wars, and we are all well aware of how *hitler* easily extended perverted catholic dogma to rationalise the need to exterminate gay people.

At least have the courage you 2 to say that what you want is some kind of democratic theocracy of your own persuasion and that you do not condone other religious belief to the extent that it contradicts your own.

Jospehus

you say "Men in Biblical times had multiple wives as there were more women than men due to wars. "

Do you have a shred of evidence to support this assertion, or are you simply fabricating desperate rationalisations for the evident lack of monogamy among the patriarchs?

Jospehus and Runner clinical studies have shown, that those who have extreme negative attitude to homosexuality, have personal issues in respect of their own sexuality.
They therefore by their conflict of being, seek to deny these latent feelings, and turn to in this case, rightwing religous fundamentalism, as Hitler did!!
The studies on this sad issue, you can easily find on the web.

Hello again Josephus,

We note no attempt to defend earlier claims challenged as being unbiblical. Shall we consider them retracted?

You are right I “haven’t proven textually that David's relationship to Jonathan was of a sexual nature and it therefore verifies a married relationship.”

But I don’t have to. I am talking about relationships approved in Scripture. Your definition of marriage is in a different category, isn't it?

On Romans 1, it is clear from the text and context what Paul is discussing. We know from various documents about the many different same-sex behaviours in ancient Rome.

These included paedophilia, temple prostitution, orgies, adulterous affairs, casual flings, concubinage with slaves and long-term marriages.

One common sexual behaviour has always been straight men in heterosexual marriages seeking thrills with men or boys. Ever-popular in the Church. Think Ted Haggard, George Rekers.

It is precisely this that Paul is addressing. The terminology is perfectly clear: “also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another.”

This is clearly talking about heterosexual men - those whose natural desire is for women - not men with natural God-given same-sex orientation.

Josephus, think of the same-sex couples you know who are in committed relationships. Or think of some of the prominent gay couples in Australia today. Their private sex lives are as dreary and uninteresting as the sex lives of any other public figure in a stable, boring straight marriage.

Who wants to know about the sex life of Joe and Mrs Hockey? Who cares? Similarly, who wants to know about the sex life of Senator Bob Brown and his long-term partner? Who cares?

Romans 1 is addressing unfaithful decadent unnatural sex – not steady, monogamous, boring, faithful sex, where the same-sex attraction is quite natural to the couple.

Read the words you have quoted, above: “lusts of their own hearts”, “uncleanness”, “dishonour their own bodies”, “vile affections”, “burned in their lust working that which is unseemly” ...

There is no basis whatsoever to claim Romans 1 is dealing with faithful, monogamous same-sex unions, is there?

Cheers, AA