People who say Gay Marriage isn't against the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Truth_Faith13
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Truth_Faith13

Guest
I’m posting this under catholic living as I would like the catholic response to these suggestions (in the knowledge that the Catholic Church opposes Gay marriage). It’s just me of the many things I am trying to get my head around…I for one have always been opposed to Gay marriage until reading/seeing the following put doubt into my mind…

The biblical passages used against gay marriage is Leviticus, Romans and Corinthians as well as genesis if you want to include Adam and Eve.

What I read/saw today said that the problem with the above is while Leviticus calls homosexuality an abomination it also includes dietary requirements and certain fibres etc…why then do we oppose homosexuality but not the other sins mentioned?

With genesis, the problem stated was that not all marriages in the bible are Adam and eve equivalent, you have polygamy for example. Others argue that the Adam and Eve story is a gender story not a marriage one as Adam and Eve didn’t get married.

I think it’s the story if lot in Romans where some say its about homosexuality others say it was about hospitality.

They also claim jesus never actual talked of homosexuality (its not mentioned in the gospels) and there isn’t actually a Hebrew word for gay attraction/marriage and the words abomination etc refer to it not being the cultural norm of the day…so a cultural problem as opposed to a biblical one?

Thoughts? (Sorry for the longish post)
 
Gen 2:24 Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh.

Mat 19:4 - 6 Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh.

Greek, Latin, Aramaic or Hebrew… can you site any biblical reference where the term “wife” is used to describe a male?
 
Truth_Faith13 said:
They also claim jesus never actual talked of homosexuality (its not mentioned in the gospels)…
Click to expand...
Jesus never specifically mentioned piracy either. Just because Jesus didn’t mention the wrongness of something doesn’t make it “okay” to engage in the behavior.
 
I recall reading plenty of articles promoting these views in my persuasive writing class at my secular college. These ideas have been around a while.

The problem is, these essays are written mostly by people who do not have a grasp of biblical interpretation. You cannot simply quote two passages from Leviticus and say that – since one refers to a dietary restriction that is no longer in force, that therefore means that the rest of the entire book is up for grabs. That’s not the way biblical interpretation works.

There are different types of Old Testament laws. Some of them are temporary and were set aside with the coming of the New Covenant in Jesus. Others are permanent and unchangeable and – as Jesus said – will never pass away.

It’s similar today in the Catholic Church. There are some Church laws that can change (e.g. what days are Holy Days of Obligation). But then there are other laws that will never change (e.g. it is sinful to murder people). The mere existence of changeable laws does not make all laws changeable.
 
Secularists always use the OT to blame Christians for this or that or to call some non-existent form of hypocrisy. :rolleyes: They also have to find one phrase in the Bible in order to not consider being Christian in order to avoid thinking things through.

I always refer them to the Jewish community for OT grievances, but I doubt any of them take up the offer for fear of being called a nazi, racist or anti-Semite.

That alone is why Western progressivism won’t be around terribly long.
 
When Jesus came, he basically brought a new law, and the old law (e.g. the list of rules from Leviticus) was rendered, well, old, and no longer required by God. So it is definitely true that you cannot use Leviticus to argue against gay marriage.

And in fact, Catholics do not use passages from the Bible to “prove” anything anyway. It is to be taken as a whole and incorporated with Christian tradition (much of which was in place before the Bible was compiled into existence) as well as what we see in God’s work in our physical world to determine a greater morality than what can be patched together with Bible verses.

With that, the reason the Catholic Church will not marry same-sex couples is that they cannot fulfill God’s design for sex, which is to bring children into the world.
 
Gay marraige is not in the Bible. Homosexual behavior is called an abomination by YHWH and HE does NOT change. In fact, in the same Bible He orders the death of those who do such things. St. Paul says that those who do such things will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. Clear enough?
 
No one in the Bible remotely suggests that it is possible for a man to marry another man, and this concept was not unknown in Roman times. This is in contrast, for example, to the example where the dietary laws were superseded. This was done by the authority of St. Peter in collegiality with the other Apostles, as is very clear in Acts. You will find nowhere in the Bible where the faithful introduced a new practice and the Apostle capitulated. No, the Apostles heard the questions of the faithful and gave definitive answers to their questions.

I don’t know how you get from the following passage about false teachers any idea except the idea that trying to normalize homosexuality is a false teaching coming from people with darkened intellects. Anybody who tries to tell us with a straight face that St. Paul would have said, “Oh, no, I didn’t mean *that *kind of homosexuality! I meant these other guys! That kind of homosexuality isn’t disordered at all! It is holy and ought to be blessed by marriage!” needs to have their head examined! (Note where I have bold-faced)

*The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. **For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. **Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes.

Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper. They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents. They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.* Rom. 1:18-32

Where St. Paul talks about marriage among the faithful, he says that celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom is preferable, but some have other gifts and so one man may marry one woman.* “I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction. If anyone thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, and if a critical moment has come and so it has to be, let him do as he wishes. He is committing no sin; let them get married.”* 1 Cor. 7:32-36

Again: Let us please be sensible. Let someone find any positive mention of homosexual acts in any context whatsoever or any positive mention of sexual acts of any kind other than between a married man and woman in all of Scriptures or in the writings of the Doctors of the Church. It does not exist. The only time homosexual acts are ever mentioned is in the context of utterly condemning them. Why? Read Ephesians 5: “Immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among holy ones, no obscenity or silly or suggestive talk, which is out of place, but instead, thanksgiving” and “it is shameful even to mention the things done by them in secret.”
 
Besides, imagine where this conversation would be if the Bible were to have gone into detail about which homosexual acts were not permitted. Would Christians not be accused of having an “obsession with” and a “suspicious amount of knowledge about” homosexuality? Would some not still be looking for a pretext to reject these teachings as particular to that time? If the passages in the Bible are not sufficient to teach that homosexual acts are forbidden, then what, pray tell, would be a sufficient teaching? What sexual act is held to be forbidden by these people because the Bible teaches it is wrong? None! Not divorce, not fornication, not anything! People joke about them, that the Ten Commandments have become the Ten Suggestions! If they want to do it, they find a way to excuse themselves! Therefore, their protest that something “is not in the Bible” is meaningless and a total red herring, since they do not feel bound by prohibitions that are in the Bible, either. Do not get into a debate that cannot possibly be won, then. It is total foolishness.

Oh, and do not be fooled by the argument that people are born with these tendencies. Ask them what inclination to sin does not have a prevalence in nature, either among humans or in the animal world. There isn’t one. 🤷
 
It’s the same maturity of argument as the one I used to hear from adolescent friends in my youth arguing that premarital sex was fine since it wasn’t “adultery” as they understood it.

In the end, you can’t out-lawyer God. You can’t really even break the moral law. All that happens is that you break yourself in trying to.
 
As I understand it Jesus taught tolerance:

Romans 14:1-4 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

How about showing some tolerance to gays?
 
The purpose of the marriage is for a husband and wife to join with each other and God in love. The marital act (sex inside marriage) is the showing forth of this love by couple in opening themselves to the divine plan, which for the marital act which is the unity of the couple AND the embrace of a new soul (the child) i.e. procereation.
When you look at it this way gay marriage, contraception, masturbation, pornography, fornication, etc do not allow for the divine plan.

If you’re looking for a bible reference, here is commonly over looked one:
Onan had sex with his brother’s wife but was not open to procreation, he rather “spilled his seed upon the ground”.
God stuck him down after that (Genesis 38:9 - 10). Which in a manner is what occurs in gay marriage. Gay marriage does not allow for procreation,
so in that sense it is self seeking. Intercourse becomes only about pleasure.
The sexual pleasure(and sometimes a child), you could say, is supposed the reward for being part of the divine plan.
See Chapter 5 in Book III of Mere Christianity.

Side note: Marriage is a covenant and every covenant has an action in which it is fulfilled. The marital act is that action in marriage.

Side note 2: Remember is the conditions for sin. “Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent.” Being physically attracted to someone of the same gender does not meet this condition. It is the thoughts and actions that are committed freely afterwards where there is sin. Gay people who live celibacy are not offending God in terms of their sexuality.
 
Solitaire said:
How about showing some tolerance to gays?
Click to expand...
Yes and no. The passage you quote allows people to be more restrictive in dietary proscriptions than is required, but warns those people not to attempt to place burdens on others that are not violations of innate morality. Not applicable to human sexuality. That’s the no.

On the yes side, gays deserve no more mistreatment than those who commit adultery, pre-marital sex, divorce and remarriage, or arguably even contraception users. If you shunned that whole list of sinners you’d have precious few friends.

Where you have to draw the line is in condoning the behavior (of any of the above). Don’t judge the person, but don’t condone the sin. Easier said than lived!
 
Solitaire said:
As I understand it Jesus taught tolerance:

Romans 14:1-4 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

How about showing some tolerance to gays?
Click to expand...
Yes, any of us who fall ought to be treated with patience and kindness. That is not the same as being treated as if we are doing right when we are in fact doing wrong. To pretend that a grave sin is not a sin at all is not charitable. As John Paul II put it, “Do not accept anything as the truth if it lacks love. And do not accept anything as love which lacks truth! One without the other becomes a destructive lie.”

We are instead encouraged to extend and to accept fraternal correction: My brothers, if anyone among you should stray from the truth and someone bring him back, he should know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. James 5:19-20

It is not right for Christians to run after people they think are sinning and shake their fingers at them when their opinion is not wanted. In a democracy, however, we write laws together. We debate in order to form public policy, which is the responsibility of all. Because we all have legislative power in that sense, we all have the duty to advocate for the truth in the public square.
 
coachkfan1 said:
Gay marraige is not in the Bible. Homosexual behavior is called an abomination by YHWH and HE does NOT change. In fact, in the same Bible He orders the death of those who do such things. St. Paul says that those who do such things will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. Clear enough?
Click to expand...
Yes it’s clear but as you say he doesn’t change why do we eat unclean meats and wear fibres etc which were also to be sinful and given orders if death? How do you discern between the laws that have changed and the laws that haven’t?
 
Solitaire said:
As I understand it Jesus taught tolerance:

Romans 14:1-4 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

How about showing some tolerance to gays?
Click to expand...
First of all, the above Scripture is talking about eating, which has nothing to do with this subject. Secondly, how about tolerance for murderers? Child molesters? God does not tolerate sin and neither should we. Of course I am speaking about those who are actively living the homosexual lifestyle, and not anyone who is living in chastity.
 
Truth_Faith13 said:
Yes it’s clear but as you say he doesn’t change why do we eat unclean meats and wear fibres etc which were also to be sinful and given orders if death? How do you discern between the laws that have changed and the laws that haven’t?
Click to expand...
For me personally I do follow a Kosher diet as a personal discipline, not because I feel that I will be condemned for eating pork, shellfish etc. but because I believe the Torah to be a reflection of God’s PERFECT will. As others have said, regarding diet, God revealed that for Gentile believers these things were ok to eat as part of His PERMISSIBLE will. You ask how do I know which things are permissible and which are not. Because the Magisterium of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church guided by the Holy Spirit has taught the truth to God’s people.
 
Solitaire said:
As I understand it Jesus taught tolerance:

Romans 14:1-4 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

How about showing some tolerance to gays?
Click to expand...
We are not talking about someone who only eats vegetables and being judged for being a vegetarian, which is not even sinful. We are talking about homosexuals trying to marry, which is offensive to God.

Where applicable, we may even use fraternal correction.

We must love and not mistreat gays. They are our brothers. However, it’s also not okay to lose traditional marriage and have Christians trying to practice their faith accused of “hate crimes”, hauled off to court, fined, closed own, or imprisoned just for trying to follow their faith.

By telling gays it’s okay to get married, if they end up in hell, and you with them, for supporting what’s offensive to God instead of standing up to it, are you really doing anybody any favors?

What about tolerance for Christians?
 
Truth_Faith13 said:
Yes it’s clear but as you say he doesn’t change why do we eat unclean meats and wear fibres etc which were also to be sinful and given orders if death? How do you discern between the laws that have changed and the laws that haven’t?
Click to expand...
Read the story in Acts 15, which produced this letter:

“The apostles and the presbyters, your brothers, to the brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia of Gentile origin: greetings. Since we have heard that some of our number [who went out] without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind, we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, who have dedicated their lives to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. So we are sending Judas and Silas who will also convey this same message by word of mouth: ‘It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell." Acts 15:23-29

The New Testament states, then, that the Holy Spirit guides those in Apostolic succession on these matters. The change with regards to Mosaic law took place before the original witnesses to the Resurrection died. There was no change with regards to marriage law, which never in the history of Christianity has included same-sex partners. (The New Testament in many places warn against false teachers.)
 
I hope this makes sense, because it might be a little long and winding.

Anyway, I don’t like the phrase “against the Bible” because I think that it is vague, nondescript, and fairly meaningless.

Rather than focusing on what is “against” the Bible, you should consider what is against various religious traditions. The Protestant church that I grew up in actually performs gay marriages, however, most don’t. The church I grew up in allows the consumption of alcohol, but Baptists and Methodists do not believe in drinking. And of course, there’s the Catholic church, that bases many of their teachings and practices on Tradition, rather than just scripture. Some Protestant churches believe heavily on using historical context, others are pure literalists. And then of course, you have Bible translations. A few of my relatives attend a church that believes that ONLY the KJV of the Bible is to be used, whereas others don’t care, and once again, the Catholic Bible even more different from the versions that Protestants use.

When talking about theology, you have to consider the theological stance of the denomination or group you’re talking about, as it will seriously impact the message.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top