homosexuality is NOT condemned in the bible.

Yep, I have already shown Biblically with facts that all the verses you posted so not say or mean homosexuality is a sin. So I shall cut and paste just for you, maybe you will learn the truth - homosexuality is not a sin." You do not answer why there are so many translations of just 1 old Greek word, why not? All you do is say it proves, which it does not or there would not be so many translations - go to the original text, not re and mis translated versions. "Which then begs the question, which is the real, true, Holy Bible, the actual Word of God - cuz they can't all be now can they? ------- Just answer this 1 question - where in the Bible does it say - 2 of the same sex in a loving and committed relationship are sinning? Then this will end. ------ (by cutting and pasting I will repeat some arguments that I posted on other forums to other people ) The Greek word malakoi, which is the plural of malakos, and the Greek word arsenokoites are both used in 1 Cor 6:9. Here is how the KJV translates I Cor 6:9. "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (malakoi), norabusers of themselves with mankind, (arsenokoites)" -1 Corinthians 6:9, KJV Malakoi In 44 Translations The Apostle Paul - AD 55 - Greek - malakoi Wycliffe - 1380 - neische Wycliffe - 1388 - letchouris ayen kinde Tyndale - 1526 - weaklinges Martin Luther - 1534 - weichlinge Coverdale - 1535 - weaklinges Matthews - 1537 - weaklinges Great Bible - 1539 - weaklynges Swedish Version - 1541 - weaklingar Geneva Bible - 1560 - wantons Bishops Bible - 1568 - weaklinges Valera Spanish - 1602 - effeminados Rheims-Douay - 1609 - effeminat King James Version - 1611 - effeminate Portuguese - 1690 - efeminados Daniel Mace New Testament - 1729 - the effeminate Darby - 1884 - those who make women of themselves Darby French - 1885 - effemines Young"s Literal - 1898 - effeminate ASV - 1901 - effeminate Weymouth - 1903 - any who are guilty of unnatural crime Louis Segund French - 1910 - effemines Moffat - 1913 - catamites (boys who have sex with men) Lamsa Translation - 1933 - men who lie down with males New American - 1941 - sodomites Revised Standard - 1952 - sexual perverts Amplified - 1958 - those who participate in homosexuality NASB - 1963 - effeminate New American Bible - 1970 - boy prostitutes New English - 1970 - guilty of homosexual perversion NIV - 1973 - male prostitutes NKJV - 1979 - homosexuals JW-NWT - 1984 - men kept for unnatural purposes New Century - 1987 - male prostitutes Green"s Interlinear - 1986 - abusers NRSV - 1989 - male prostitutes Bible In Basic English - 1994 - one who is less than a man CEV - 1995 - pervert NLT - 1996 - male prostitute Complete Jewish Bible - 1998 - active or passive homosexuality International Standard Version - 2000 - male prostitutes The Message - 2002 - those who use and abuse each other World English Bible - 2005 - male prostitutes God"s Word Translation - 2006 - homosexuals The NET Bible - 2006 - passive homosexual partners The Remarkable Semantic Shift The remarkable semantic shift in the meaning of malakoi, which by 1958, came to equate malakoi with homosexuality instead of softness, moral weakness or effeminacy, was not prompted by new linguistic evidence. Instead, cultural factors influenced modern translators to inject anti-homosexual bias into their translation. In ancient times, the malakos word group never referred exclusively to homosexuals and lesbians. The malakos stem rarely, if ever, referred to homosexual behavior. Further, I have never seen any indication that the ancients used the malakosword group to refer to lesbians. Yet, translating malakoi today as homosexuals causes the word to include lesbians, something the original text never said and translations never said for 1900 years. It should be clearly understood that most antigay Christians today interpret 1 Corinthians 6:9 as a universal prohibition of homosexuality including lesbian relationships, this in spite of the fact that most of our spiritual ancestors did not understand the text to say that. Scripture cannot mean now" what it did not mean then. Translating malakoi as homosexuals imposes a twentieth or twenty first century cultural meaning on the text which malakoi did not mean in the first century. If malakoi was not a universally understood reference to homosexuals in the first century when Paul used it, then malakoi does not mean homosexual today. The Malakos Word Group The word malaka, with the general meaning soft, is used three times in the New Testament, Matthew 4:23, 9:35, 10:1. It is translated disease in the KJV and sickness in the NAS. The Greek word malaka has nothing to do with homosexuality The word malakos occurs four times, in three verses in the New Testament. In Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25, Jesus uses the word to refer to soft clothing. In the Bible, Jesus never used the malakos word group to mean homosexual. Paul uses malakoi (the plural of malakos) in 1 Corinthians 6:9. Some translations translate malakoi as "male prostitutes." (NIV, New Century, NRSV, NLT, ISV, WEB). However, that malakoi means male prostitutes in Paul's usage is highly unlikely since Paul has already mentioned pornoi, meaning male prostitutes, in this vice list. Because Paul's reasoning is tight and his writing style spare, it is unlikely Paul would repeat himself by using malakoi with the meaning of male prostitutes. English translations did not translate malakoi to mean homosexual until the Amplified Bible in 1958. The word malakoi in New Testament times, was sometimes an epithet for being effeminate, not homosexual. The ancients did not equate" effeminate with homosexuality. Some of the mightiest warriors in ancient times were homosexuals yet they were not called malakoi. Our ancestors used the malakos word group in a way similar to a high school baseball coach who chides a lazy jock by saying, "You throw like a girl" or a drill instructor barking at his male, boot camp recruits, "Okay ladies, drop" and give me 50" [push ups]. The coach isn't calling his players homosexuals and the drill instructor isn't calling his recruits homosexuals. The truth is, the word malakoi, in antiquity, was rarely, if ever, used to indicate homosexuals. How Was Malakoi Used" In Ancient Times? Pericles, 495-429 BC, in his funeral oration, lauded the Greeks because they cultivated knowledge without malakia,meaning softness or effeminacy. Here malakia referred to intellect, not homosexuality. -Thucydides, The History of the Peloponnesian War, 431 BC, Book Two, Chapter VI. Plato, 427-347 BC, in The Republic, has Socrates opine that too much music effeminates a warrior, causing him to be malakoteroi, soft, feeble, sensitive. Plato expressed an ancient Greek concept, that too much music made a man soft, not homosexual. -Plato, The Republic, 360 BC, Book III." Aristotle, 384-322 BC, in Nicomachean Ethics, used malakos to describe lack of restraint and excessive enjoyment of bodily pleasures. Aristotle wrote: He "who pursues the excesses of things pleasant, and shuns those of things painful, of hunger and thirst and heat and cold and all the objects of touch and taste... that men are called 'soft' [malakos] with regard to these pleasures... Now of appetites and pleasures... with reference to all objects whether of this or of the intermediate kind men are not blamed for being affected by them, for desiring and loving them, but for doing so in a certain way, i.e. for going to excess." -Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 7.4.4. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 60-7 BC, in Roman Antiquities, explains how Aristodemus Malacus, 504 BC, tyrant of Cumae [situated northwest of Naples, the first Greek colony on the Italian mainland], made the male children of Cumae effeminate (meaning soft or womanly, not homosexual), so they would not rise up against him. In ancient Greek society, the education of young men involved separation from effeminizing, womanly influence. Young men were educated by older male friends of the family, who taught sports, ethics, fighting and philosophy in the gymnasium. Aristodemus suppressed the all-male gymnasiums and limited male influence by giving male children into the care of female governesses. "3 These children, accordingly, forsaking the houses of their fathers, were brought up in the country like slaves, serving the murderers of their fathers. And to the end that no noble or manly spirit might spring up in any of the rest of the citizens,he resolved to make effeminate by means of their upbringingall the youths who were being reared in the city, and with that view he suppressed the gymnasiums and the practice of arms and changed the manner of life previously followed by the children. 4 For he ordered the boys to wear their hair long like the girls, adorn it with flowers, to keep it curled and to bind up the tresses with hair-nets, to wear embroidered robes that reached down to their feet, and, over these, thin and soft mantles, and to pass their lives in the shade. And when they went to the schools kept by dancing-masters, flute-players and others who, like these, pay court to the Muses, their governesses attended them, taking along parasols and fans; and these women bathed them, carrying into the baths combs, alabaster pots filled with perfumes, and looking-glasses. 5 By such training he continued to enervate the youth till they had completed their twentieth year, and from that time permitted them to be considered as men." -Dionysius, Roman Antiquities, Book VII.9.3, p. 172. Josephus, AD 37-100, used malakosto describe men who appeared soft or weak through lack of courage in battle or who were reluctant to commit suicide in defeat or who enjoyed too much luxury. This usage does not indicate homosexuality. -Wars of The Jews,7.338; Antiquities of The Jews, 5.246; 10.194. Epictetus, AD 55-135, used malakos to refer to soft-headed persons, whom he regarded as unable to absorb true philosophy. This usage does not indicate homosexuality. -Epictetus, Discourse 3:9. Dio Chrysostom, AD 40-120, used malakosto refer to those made soft by too much learning. This usage does not indicate homosexuality. -Dio Chrysostom 49:25. John The Faster, around AD 575. For centuries, malakia was said to mean masturbation. Use of malakia, with the meaning of masturbation, is attributed to John the Faster around AD 575. The Catholic Church has long interpreted malakia to mean masturbation. -John The Faster, Penitential. Does not indicate homosexuality. Our honest factual" conclusion about malakoi The citations on this page indicate that the malakos word group was not used by our ancestors as a general reference to gay men and lesbians. When anti-gay conservative Calvinists like Phil Johnson support the gay Christian view, that the cultural, historical, religious context of 1 Corinthians 6 was temple prostitution, that is an important admission. It is historically inaccurate and factually incorrect to translate the malakos word group to mean homosexual. The evidence indicates that 1 Corinthians 6 is dealing with temple prostitution - even our most ardent foes agree with us about that. Christian honesty requires non-gay Christians to come clean on this issue. Non-gay Christians must stop wresting 1 Corinthians 6:9 from its context to assault gay and lesbian Christians. Your answer with a follow up questions: "(you will need to refute each item or you are simply blowing in the witd) - Original text should be obvious - original - the question is two words 'Malakoi' and 'Arsenokiotes'" How do you translated these two words? The Greek word malakoi, which is the plural of malakos, and the Greek word arsenokoites are both used in 1 Cor 6:9. Here is how the KJV translates I Cor 6:9. "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (malakoi), norabusers of themselves with mankind, (arsenokoites)" -1 Corinthians 6:9, KJV Malakoi In 44 Translations The Apostle Paul - AD 55 - Greek - malakoi Wycliffe - 1380 - neische Wycliffe - 1388 - letchouris ayen kinde Tyndale - 1526 - weaklinges Martin Luther - 1534 - weichlinge Coverdale - 1535 - weaklinges Matthews - 1537 - weaklinges Great Bible - 1539 - weaklynges Swedish Version - 1541 - weaklingar Geneva Bible - 1560 - wantons Bishops Bible - 1568 - weaklinges Valera Spanish - 1602 - effeminados Rheims-Douay - 1609 - effeminat King James Version - 1611 - effeminate Portuguese - 1690 - efeminados Daniel Mace New Testament - 1729 - the effeminate Darby - 1884 - those who make women of themselves Darby French - 1885 - effemines Young"s Literal - 1898 - effeminate ASV - 1901 - effeminate Weymouth - 1903 - any who are guilty of unnatural crime Louis Segund French - 1910 - effemines Moffat - 1913 - catamites (boys who have sex with men) Lamsa Translation - 1933 - men who lie down with males New American - 1941 - sodomites Revised Standard - 1952 - sexual perverts Amplified - 1958 - those who participate in homosexuality NASB - 1963 - effeminate New American Bible - 1970 - boy prostitutes New English - 1970 - guilty of homosexual perversion NIV - 1973 - male prostitutes NKJV - 1979 - homosexuals JW-NWT - 1984 - men kept for unnatural purposes New Century - 1987 - male prostitutes Green"s Interlinear - 1986 - abusers NRSV - 1989 - male prostitutes Bible In Basic English - 1994 - one who is less than a man CEV - 1995 - pervert NLT - 1996 - male prostitute Complete Jewish Bible - 1998 - active or passive homosexuality International Standard Version - 2000 - male prostitutes The Message - 2002 - those who use and abuse each other World English Bible - 2005 - male prostitutes God"s Word Translation - 2006 - homosexuals The NET Bible - 2006 - passive homosexual partners The Remarkable Semantic Shift The remarkable semantic shift in the meaning of malakoi, which by 1958, came to equate malakoi with homosexuality instead of softness, moral weakness or effeminacy, was not prompted by new linguistic evidence. Instead, cultural factors influenced modern translators to inject anti-homosexual bias into their translation. In ancient times, the malakos word group never referred exclusively to homosexuals and lesbians. The malakos stem rarely, if ever, referred to homosexual behavior. Further, I have never seen any indication that the ancients used the malakosword group to refer to lesbians. Yet, translating malakoi today as homosexuals causes the word to include lesbians, something the original text never said and translations never said for 1900 years. It should be clearly understood that most antigay Christians today interpret 1 Corinthians 6:9 as a universal prohibition of homosexuality including lesbian relationships, this in spite of the fact that most of our spiritual ancestors did not understand the text to say that. Scripture cannot mean now" what it did not mean then. Translating malakoi as homosexuals imposes a twentieth or twenty first century cultural meaning on the text which malakoi did not mean in the first century. If malakoi was not a universally understood reference to homosexuals in the first century when Paul used it, then malakoi does not mean homosexual today. The Malakos Word Group The word malaka, with the general meaning soft, is used three times in the New Testament, Matthew 4:23, 9:35, 10:1. It is translated disease in the KJV and sickness in the NAS. The Greek word malaka has nothing to do with homosexuality The word malakos occurs four times, in three verses in the New Testament. In Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25, Jesus uses the word to refer to soft clothing. In the Bible, Jesus never used the malakos word group to mean homosexual. Paul uses malakoi (the plural of malakos) in 1 Corinthians 6:9. Some translations translate malakoi as "male prostitutes." (NIV, New Century, NRSV, NLT, ISV, WEB). However, that malakoi means male prostitutes in Paul's usage is highly unlikely since Paul has already mentioned pornoi, meaning male prostitutes, in this vice list. Because Paul's reasoning is tight and his writing style spare, it is unlikely Paul would repeat himself by using malakoi with the meaning of male prostitutes. English translations did not translate malakoi to mean homosexual until the Amplified Bible in 1958. The word malakoi in New Testament times, was sometimes an epithet for being effeminate, not homosexual. The ancients did not equate" effeminate with homosexuality. Some of the mightiest warriors in ancient times were homosexuals yet they were not called malakoi. Our ancestors used the malakos word group in a way similar to a high school baseball coach who chides a lazy jock by saying, "You throw like a girl" or a drill instructor barking at his male, boot camp recruits, "Okay ladies, drop" and give me 50" [push ups]. The coach isn't calling his players homosexuals and the drill instructor isn't calling his recruits homosexuals. The truth is, the word malakoi, in antiquity, was rarely, if ever, used to indicate homosexuals. How Was Malakoi Used" In Ancient Times? Pericles, 495-429 BC, in his funeral oration, lauded the Greeks because they cultivated knowledge without malakia,meaning softness or effeminacy. Here malakia referred to intellect, not homosexuality. -Thucydides, The History of the Peloponnesian War, 431 BC, Book Two, Chapter VI. Plato, 427-347 BC, in The Republic, has Socrates opine that too much music effeminates a warrior, causing him to be malakoteroi, soft, feeble, sensitive. Plato expressed an ancient Greek concept, that too much music made a man soft, not homosexual. -Plato, The Republic, 360 BC, Book III." Aristotle, 384-322 BC, in Nicomachean Ethics, used malakos to describe lack of restraint and excessive enjoyment of bodily pleasures. Aristotle wrote: He "who pursues the excesses of things pleasant, and shuns those of things painful, of hunger and thirst and heat and cold and all the objects of touch and taste... that men are called 'soft' [malakos] with regard to these pleasures... Now of appetites and pleasures... with reference to all objects whether of this or of the intermediate kind men are not blamed for being affected by them, for desiring and loving them, but for doing so in a certain way, i.e. for going to excess." -Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 7.4.4. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 60-7 BC, in Roman Antiquities, explains how Aristodemus Malacus, 504 BC, tyrant of Cumae [situated northwest of Naples, the first Greek colony on the Italian mainland], made the male children of Cumae effeminate (meaning soft or womanly, not homosexual), so they would not rise up against him. In ancient Greek society, the education of young men involved separation from effeminizing, womanly influence. Young men were educated by older male friends of the family, who taught sports, ethics, fighting and philosophy in the gymnasium. Aristodemus suppressed the all-male gymnasiums and limited male influence by giving male children into the care of female governesses. "3 These children, accordingly, forsaking the houses of their fathers, were brought up in the country like slaves, serving the murderers of their fathers. And to the end that no noble or manly spirit might spring up in any of the rest of the citizens,he resolved to make effeminate by means of their upbringingall the youths who were being reared in the city, and with that view he suppressed the gymnasiums and the practice of arms and changed the manner of life previously followed by the children. 4 For he ordered the boys to wear their hair long like the girls, adorn it with flowers, to keep it curled and to bind up the tresses with hair-nets, to wear embroidered robes that reached down to their feet, and, over these, thin and soft mantles, and to pass their lives in the shade. And when they went to the schools kept by dancing-masters, flute-players and others who, like these, pay court to the Muses, their governesses attended them, taking along parasols and fans; and these women bathed them, carrying into the baths combs, alabaster pots filled with perfumes, and looking-glasses. 5 By such training he continued to enervate the youth till they had completed their twentieth year, and from that time permitted them to be considered as men." -Dionysius, Roman Antiquities, Book VII.9.3, p. 172. Josephus, AD 37-100, used malakosto describe men who appeared soft or weak through lack of courage in battle or who were reluctant to commit suicide in defeat or who enjoyed too much luxury. This usage does not indicate homosexuality. -Wars of The Jews,7.338; Antiquities of The Jews, 5.246; 10.194. Epictetus, AD 55-135, used malakos to refer to soft-headed persons, whom he regarded as unable to absorb true philosophy. This usage does not indicate homosexuality. -Epictetus, Discourse 3:9. Dio Chrysostom, AD 40-120, used malakosto refer to those made soft by too much learning. This usage does not indicate homosexuality. -Dio Chrysostom 49:25. John The Faster, around AD 575. For centuries, malakia was said to mean masturbation. Use of malakia, with the meaning of masturbation, is attributed to John the Faster around AD 575. The Catholic Church has long interpreted malakia to mean masturbation. -John The Faster, Penitential. Does not indicate homosexuality. Our honest factual" conclusion about malakoi The citations on this page indicate that the malakos word group was not used by our ancestors as a general reference to gay men and lesbians. When anti-gay conservative Calvinists like Phil Johnson support the gay Christian view, that the cultural, historical, religious context of 1 Corinthians 6 was temple prostitution, that is an important admission. It is historically inaccurate and factually incorrect to translate the malakos word group to mean homosexual. The evidence indicates that 1 Corinthians 6 is dealing with temple prostitution - even our most ardent foes agree with us about that. Christian honesty requires non-gay Christians to come clean on this issue. Non-gay Christians must stop wresting 1 Corinthians 6:9 from its context to assault gay and lesbian Christians. Credit to Daniel Helminiak for providing this info : "Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male the lyings of a woman; it is an abomination." (Leviticus 20:13 prescribes the death penalty. Cursing one's parents, adultery, incest, and bestiality merit the same punishment.) The literary context is the Holiness Code for Israel. Its intent is religious. Its stipulations are to keep the Jews "set apart," "holy," "clean." Practices like mixing of kinds (different seeds in the same field, different fibers in one cloth) defile. Sea creatures are to have scales. Land animals with cleft hoofs are to chew the cud. Likewise, sexually men are to penetrate, women are to be penetrated. So sexual penetration of another male (to experience with a male the sexual receptivity, the "lyings," that a woman offers) mixes kinds and is unclean"but not other kinds of male-male nor female-female sex. As in the "Clinton defense," so also for the ancient Hebrews, only penetration counts as real sex. The concern of Leviticus was not the nature of sex or even homosexuality, but a cultural taboo. It takes on religious implications when cultural practices are used to set the Jews apart, make them "holy," in comparison with other peoples. * The term abomination occurs throughout the Code and means nothing worse than uncleanness, impurity. * The use of the Hebrew term toevah (impurity, abomination, taboo) instead of zimah (injustice, wrongdoing) and, in the 300-150 B.C.E. Greek translation, use of the term bdelygma (impurity, uncleanness), instead of anomia (injustice), poneria (evil), or asebeia (ungodliness), which are used to translate toevah elsewhere, confirm this interpretation. * Talmudic commentary (Olyan, 1994) does so lucidly, as well. Conclusion: For the Jewish Testament penetrative male-male sex acts are a matter of ritual impurity or religious taboo, not a matter of sexual ethics or of the nature of sex. Betrayal of Judaism, not a sex act, is condemned.Credit to Daniel Helminiak for providing this info : "Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male the lyings of a woman; it is an abomination." (Leviticus 20:13 prescribes the death penalty. Cursing one's parents, adultery, incest, and bestiality merit the same punishment.) The literary context is the Holiness Code for Israel. Its intent is religious. Its stipulations are to keep the Jews "set apart," "holy," "clean." Practices like mixing of kinds (different seeds in the same field, different fibers in one cloth) defile. Sea creatures are to have scales. Land animals with cleft hoofs are to chew the cud. Likewise, sexually men are to penetrate, women are to be penetrated. So sexual penetration of another male (to experience with a male the sexual receptivity, the "lyings," that a woman offers) mixes kinds and is unclean"but not other kinds of male-male nor female-female sex. As in the "Clinton defense," so also for the ancient Hebrews, only penetration counts as real sex. The concern of Leviticus was not the nature of sex or even homosexuality, but a cultural taboo. It takes on religious implications when cultural practices are used to set the Jews apart, make them "holy," in comparison with other peoples. * The term abomination occurs throughout the Code and means nothing worse than uncleanness, impurity. * The use of the Hebrew term toevah (impurity, abomination, taboo) instead of zimah (injustice, wrongdoing) and, in the 300-150 B.C.E. Greek translation, use of the term bdelygma (impurity, uncleanness), instead of anomia (injustice), poneria (evil), or asebeia (ungodliness), which are used to translate toevah elsewhere, confirm this interpretation. * Talmudic commentary (Olyan, 1994) does so lucidly, as well. Conclusion: For the Jewish Testament penetrative male-male sex acts are a matter of ritual impurity or religious taboo, not a matter of sexual ethics or of the nature of sex. Betrayal of Judaism, not a sex act, is condemned.A279; As for Jude, it was referring to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah which dealt with homosexual RAPE! No one that I know of is defending RAPE. Nice try, though..As for Romans 1:26 ""For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men gave up the natural function of the woman and burned in their lust toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."" First of all, you can't "give up" something you never had in the first place. If I ask you for a million dollars, you can't "give it up" to me if you never had it, right? The use of the woman for gay men, is not NATURAL. Second of all, no one that I know of is defending LUST. Obviously these men were straight because they left the women in the name of LUST. That of course would be wrong. There was lust, promiscuity, and adultery going on in this passage. It is clearly not "loving your neighbor". We would never read a passage in the Bible about heterosexual lust and promiscuity and condemn all heterosexual marriages, would we? Now before you try to say that verse says that homosexuality goes against "NATURE": 1 Cor 11:113-15 says "Does not the very NATURE of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him..." Nature had to do with custom, not biology. Unless of course you believe that NATURE controls the length of a man's hair. It is the same Greek word for "nature/natural" in Greek translated in 1 Cor 11 as it is in Romans . "phusis " We are to interpret Scripture with other Scripture. A word cannot mean one thing in one verse and something else in another. None of these verses give clear condemnation of homosexuality. It only proves it is wrong in certain circumstances; just as heterosexuality is wrong in certain circumstances.A279; Thanks for immediately changing the subject from proving whether or not the word "ONLY" is in the text, as you claim to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. I will address it regardless and once I do and you cannot offer a rebuttal, at least it will be over and done with. First things first, Sodom and Gomorrah is not about 2 members of the same sex in a loving and committed relationship; "it's about RAPE! I can prove your hypocrisy here very easily: If the story was about HETEROSEXUAL RAPE, would you draw the conclusions that all hetero relationships/marriages were sinful as well? If not, why not? Second of all, the book of "Ezekiel tells us exactly why the city was destroyed Ezekiel 16:48-50, As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord " this was the sin of your sister Sodom: "She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. "They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Apparently ARROGANT, GREEDY, SELFISH, and FAT PEOPLE were the reasons the city was destroyed! Notice that 2 members of the same sex in a loving and committed relationship are never mentioned? Now, do you have have anything else but your own bigotry against homosexuals that you can offer as evidence that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is about 2 members of the same sex in a loving and committed relationship? ;) A trio of Iowa-based religious scholars penned an op-ed, reminding readers that despite popular opinion, the Bible does not simply define marriage as between one man and one woman. The argument against same-sex marriage is wholly unsustainable debate about marriage equality often centers, however discretely, on an appeal to the Bible. Unfortunately, such appeals often reflect a lack of biblical literacy on the part of those who use that complex collection of texts as an authority to enact modern social policy. The Bible's definition of marriage can be confusing and contradictory. A primary example of this is the religious book's stance on polygamy, a practice that was embraced by prominent biblical figures Abraham and David. Various Bible passages mention not only traditional monogamy, but also self-induced castration and celibacy, as well as the practice of wedding rape victims to their rapists. There are some people he may never be able to convince. Many politicians have made a career out of using the Bible to justify opposition to hot-button topics like same sex marriage. Those that use the Bible aren't necessarily interested in the truth or the complexity of the Bible. They are looking for one ancient sound bite to convince people what they already believe. Anyone who argues that "the Bible speaks plainly on one issue, especially something as complicated as marriage ... haven't take the time to read all of it. Your opinion - the sprit "- is your opinion not Biblical fact. Your turn to prove I am incorrect.A279; Kim Kerchner Because they are 2 totally different topics, now where is your evidence that the New Testament is ever referred to as God's Word/Scripture? Only a person who suppresses the truth about God and His Word wants evidence. Hey, that sounds like you...> It simple is? That is your evidence? In other words you do not have any or you would have been able to show some by now. What is obvious to everyone at this point is that you think that as long as Kim believes something to be true, then everyone just needs to take her word for it because she cannot defend what she believes. She believes that it's "obvious" and that is the end of the story. Where does your magic book say that "Only a person who suppresses the truth about God and His Word wants evidence."? I would LOVE to see it, after you show me where Paul or any apostle makes the claim that they are writing God's infallible Word/Scripture. I never said God didn't agree with Paul. He my have or may not "have, but that's not the issue here. "YOU are the one making the argument that EVERY SINGLE WORD IN THE BIBLE is God's Word. Now you are saying you agree with ME! LOL! You cannot have it both ways. The only time Paul says that God is speaking is in 1 Cor 7:10, "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband." If God is speaking word for word through Paul except in verse 12, why does Paul go out of his way to point out when God is speaking, but then confirms 3 times afterwards that God is NOT speaking and that Paul is giving his own judgments and speaking foolishly? You would still need to explain why Paul (who according to 1 Timothy 1:15 is the "chief" or "worst" of all sinners) would be capable of such a divine task such as writing God's infallible Word. There is no evidence that Paul had any idea that the letters that he was writing to the churches were going to be part of some Holy Book. As I pointed out earlier, the cannon was decided upon hundreds of years. In the case of the Protestant Churches, it was well over a thousand years, but guess what?? People are STILL arguing about what books should or should NOT be included! Who is right? Who is wrong? Let's first start with marriage. Marriage is only a marriage in God's eyes when one man marries one woman. Assuming never are already married to someone else. This is considered a holy union and God ordains this marriage. Anything else, such as two men or two women or three people., or a goat and dog, do not fall into a category of marriage in God's eyes.> Where exactly does it say that "marriage is ONLY a marriage in God's eyes when one man marries one woman."? That too, I would LOVE to see. Christians LOVE to throw words into the texts in order to support their presuppositions in order to change the original meanings. The Bible NEVER "says that. It NEVER says that a man can ONLY marry a woman or that a woman can ONLY marry a man. I'm glad "you mentioned the fact that a biblical marriage is between a man and a woman (only). "I have about 4 complicated question for you that so far, no Christian has ever been able to answer. "Perhaps you can clarify something for me that so far, no Christian has been able to do without contradicting themselves, the Bible, science, or all of the above. Now if I understand you correctly, you are making the argument that since I am a man and I know I'm a man by what I have between my legs, I should ONLY choose a woman as a mate, right? In your view, God made a law that we should not be homosexual and that law applies to EVERYONE and God does not make exceptions for ANYONE because he is 'just' in his ways. Furthermore, in Acts 10:34, it says, "Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism." "Mat 19:4 "And he answered and said, Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female," Mat 19:5 "and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh?" Mat 19:6 "So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together (male and female), let not man put asunder.> " " I think the Bible is clear here that God made male and female. I think it's clear here that he wanted the 2 to become 1 flesh. So far, I'm in complete agreement with you. Now it's about to get tricky because I'm leading up to a series of questions related to this that so far NO CHRISTIAN has ever been able to answer, so I look forward to your reply." " "Just because no other unions are mentioned, it does not prove they are condemned either especially for the fact that there were hardly any gay people in those days. By "gay" I mean 2 people that were in a committed and loving relationship. " " "Now for my favorite part! Yes God did create male and female (gender specifically mentioned. I beaming at you approvingly in total agreement and this is why the Bible CONTRADICTS SCIENCE! If God created our genders, and when we are born, our genders determine our sexual orientation for us, how do you explain AIS-intersex folks? Just a little background on the definition, an AIS-intersex individual is BORN with a vagina, female breasts, female voice box, outwardly looks completely female, and hormonally is more female than the average female. However, they do not have fallopian tubes, ovaries, a cervix, or a uterus. HERE IS THE BEST PART... They DO have internal testicles and their DNA is 100% MALE!!! Before I go on, there is a lovely youtube video called, "2 women with AIS". Just go to the search engine, type that in and you will see a short 9 minute video explaining in detail the condition these people are born with. " "These people are born with both genders! We know that God is a "just" God according to the Bible so he would not make a law or rule for one person and not another. These people are clearly born this way and through no fault of their own, are forced to deal with this dilemma. If God only created male and female like most Christians love to say he did, they still need to explain why he made intersex people. It does not matter if it is the result of a birth defect or not, the fact of the matter is, they are here. This condition contradicts the Conservative Christian view that God only made man for woman and woman for man. Who did He make intersex people for? They will technically be gay and straight at the same time because they are both sexes. Your whole argument is based on GENDER. In other words, you argue that if one is born a woman (GENDER) they should be with a man( GENDER). If one is born a man (GENDER), they should be with a woman (GENDER). If you are BORN as 2 genders, then your argument completely falls apart. Now normally what happens at this juncture is christians want to try to make the argument that AIS folks are somehow 'irrelevant' to this discussion. While I will admit that this does not prove that homosexuality is NOT a sin, it still had merit when discussing the issue of GENDER. You cannot bring up the topic of GENDER and then when I prove that GENDER is not always consistent in nature, then attempt to make the argument that this topic is irrelevant. The ONLY way the Bible would not contradict itself in this context is if you accept MY interpretation and believe that God is NOT hung up on GENDER or sexual orientation.A279; Now can you answer the following questions: 1) If God created our genders, and when we are born, our genders determine our sexual orientation for us, (we can agree that God is a 'just' God), and that He would never make a law that all of mankind could not keep, why would he create AIS people? Now before you say he didn't create them, but the fall of man did, let me remind you what Colossians 1:16 says, "For in him ALL things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; ALL things have been created through him and for him." 2) Could your God not make up his mind? The Bible says in Psalm 139:19, "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb." This verse makes it clear that He is still involved in our creation, so again, what was God thinking if he is so hung up on gender? ;) 3) Who should an AIS person choose to marry without sinning? After all, they will be gay and straight no matter whom they choose? 4) And probably most importantly, can you offer any Biblical evidence or scientific evidence for your answers to these question? You have yet to provide any evidence of either. I'LL BE WAITING!! ;) 5) Would you not allow AIS people to marry at all since they are clearly 2 genders or would you try to stop that as well?A279; 6) What evidence do you have that 2 members of the same sex in a loving and committed relationship are violating the one and ONLY command we are told to keep as New Testament believers? Galatians 5:14, "For the ENTIRE LAW is fulfilled with this one; love your neighbor as yourself."A279; Now as far as Genesis and what Jesus said in Matthew 19, all I can say "is, so what about it? You still have not proven that Jesus said that marriage is ONLY between a man and woman. Furthermore, gay marriage didn't exist back then so there would be no reason to mention it. Just because He does not mention it, does NOT mean that he forbids it or that it is a sin. You have NOT provided any evidence that 2 members of the same sex in a loving and committed relationship are violating Galatians5:14 Now for the sake of time, let me predict your next 'proof text' and deal with it. "You are trying to apply a verse written over 2000 years ago about an issue that didn't exist and apply it to an issue that DOES exist in 2015! You clearly do not understand, culture, context, and logic. To make matters even worse for you , you STILL would need to explain (with Biblical and scientific evidence) whom an intersex person should choose as a mate if your interpretation of Matthew 19 is correct. If God is so hung up on a gender marrying the opposite gender, why in the hell would He create someone that is BORN BOTH genders??? They will be gay with anyone they choose? What if they choose to marry another intersex person??? Then what, ?? And don't tell "me that God will "apply mercy in that particular situation and allow them to choose" unless you can back that statement up with Biblical support. And if you insist on making that argument, you need to explain how you reconcile Acts 10:34, "God does NOT show favortism." "Since I believe that the Bible is inconsistent and does contradict itself, I have no problem coming to the conclusion . Having said that, let's assume that it does NOT contradict itself. I still do not see in this particular circumstance that God would be contradicting Himself. As for Genesis 1-2, you must consider the context of this verse. First of all, this was the beginning of creation. MANY things no longer apply because circumstances are not the same. For example, He also told us to be fruitful and multiply. Does that mean that even if the population of the earth "reaches 20 billion that we should still obey that command? I would argue that we should NOT simply because we are not even able to take care of the 7 billion that we have today. Furthermore, this was necessary in order to populate the planet and given the fact that there were only 2 people at that time, this verse made perfect sense. Here is your other problem; God MEANT for MANY things to happen that clearly do NOT happen, but this does NOT mean that the things that DO happen are sinful. "For example, God may have MEANT for us to have 2 parents, but sometimes parents die or abandon their children. Sometimes a child may have 2 extra parents in the form of step-parents. Are step-parents part of God's original plan? Of course not, but this does not mean the relationship that they have with the children is OUTSIDE of God's plan or becomes 'sinful'.A279; "A279; Show less Jason M6:31 AM " " +Kim Kerchner The slipper slope arguments... Don't forget to mention incest, or pedophilia! No doubt that you (like everyone else) will show even more desperation and bringing up irrelevant topics such as the ones you mentioned and the ones that I added to your list. I will deal with them ALL and beat you to the punch because I KNOW you want to use them on me! ;) "We conclude that a man marrying a man or woman marrying a woman is NOT a"SIN", as it relates to the only law New Testament believers are to keep is found in Galatians 5:14, "For the ENTIRE LAW is fulfilled with this one; love your neighbor as yourself. Romans 13:10, "Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." Matthew 22:37-40, " Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." "Unless you can somehow show or justify how 2 members of the same sex in a loving and committed relationship are somehow violating any of those verses, then we can clearly conclude that it is NOT a sin in the context that I have just described. Where is YOUR evidence to prove the contrary? " As for your 'bestiality argument', "We are told to obey government in Romans 13:1-2, "Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there. All governments have been placed in power by God. 2 So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow." and in that obviously would go in conjunction with us loving our neighbors as ourselves. In other words, if we do not obey the laws of government that are put in place to get along with others in society, we are violating Galatians 5:14, so your argument crumbles right before our very eyes once again! ;) Furthermore, except for in the case of using animals for food, we are told not to be cruel to them in Proverbs 12:10, "A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel." So unless you are arguing that animal RAPE is NOT cruel, perhaps you should re-think your irrelevant argument. How about I address all the slippery slope arguments once and for all and show you why you are full of nonsense: " "I must say that I cannot believe that people in this day and age are still trying desperately to say that if gay marriage is allowed, that non-consensual sex will be allowed too (except for incest, that's really what we are talking about) . Animals and children do not have the mental capacity "nor possess the maturity to enter into such an agreement like sex or "marriage. Are you saying they can? YOU ARE SICK! When an animal can go to city hall, sign a contract, UNDERSTAND and make an agreement as sophisticated as marriage, then we can talk. Animals are also not covered under the Constitution. Furthermore, I have NEVER heard a gay person make the claim that just because 2 consenting adults of the same sex decide to enter the institution of marriage that we should allow child molestation or bestiality. "I have only heard straight people make that argument. Let me entertain your stupidity and assume that these things were allowed. It doesn't prove that gay marriage caused these other things to happen. They used the same tired arguments in the 60's when it came to race. They said that interracial marriage would lead to gay marriage. But did it? I don't think so, but if it did, we should banned same-race-hetero-marriages too since they obviously existed first, (and to be consistent with your view) led to interracial marriage and interracial marriages lead to gay marriages, right? ;) As I have said repeatedly, correlation does not prove causation. It's the most important rule in epidemiology. " " Now that I have shown that gay marriage does not cause the things you mentioned, I can show why (except for incest) they would never be allowed without rewriting hundreds of laws. For example, if you marry your dog, child, or doll, you decided to adopt a child, and you get divorced, who would get custody? If the child they adopt if 16 and a 50 year old marries a 10 year old, is the 10 year old the legal guardian as well? "This is just insanity! Furthermore, who would get the house and property after the divorce? The complications would not end. These problems do not exist with gay marriage and that is the reason it has nothing in common with these other idiotic assertions you are making. " "As for polygamy, the same basic argument could be made, How would an employer determine health benefits to five wives? Who would get custody of the children after divorce? If one wife divorced the husband, would she still have be married to the other wives and be allowed visitation rights to her child or some other wive's child? The complications would not end. NONE of these issues come up with 2 members of the same sex. That is why they have NOTHING in common. Do you get it yet???? " " "As for incest, look, I think it's gross too, but this is America and as long as they are not hurting anyone, it's really none of my business. I think to 90 year olds having sex is gross too. The difference between you and I is that I'm not saying that they do not have a right to do it. Furthermore, how does a mom marrying her son "effect your life one iota?A279; It is NOT condemned in the context of 2 members of the same sex in a loving and committed relationship and I challenge you to prove the contrary. You used a Levitical text in the attempt to use a faulty translation of the Bible known as the "Septuagint" and I can't let you get away with that; especially without having the opportunity to show why you will be extremely hypocritical and disingenuous for doing so. First of all the OT was NOT written in Greek (or Septuagint) so your mentioning of the 'interlinear translation' is dishonest at best. Furthermore what you have written most certainly IS up for debate. I would also point out as I did in my last post what the HEBREW translation of Lev is: "You shall not lie with a male [on] the bedding of a woman/wife it is a despised thing." I would also point out that NO ONE knows for certain what the word "arsenokoites" means simply because there was no context for the use of the word. It was the first recorded use of the word in human history. Furthermore, if Paul wanted to use a word that we could absolutely say for certain referred to homosexual behavior, he could have used the following words: 1) arrenomanes - meaning mad after men or boy crazy 2) dihetaristriai - a synonym referencing lesbian sexuality, meaning essentially the same thing as hetairistriai, tribad, tribades, from: Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism, Brooton, Bernadette, p. 23. 3) erastes - a sometimes older man who loves a sometimes younger male 4) eromenos - a sometimes younger male who loves an older male 5) euryproktoi " men who dress as women, also a vulgar reference to anal penetration 6) frictrix - Latin word referring to a lewd woman and sometimes used to refer to a lesbian. Tertullian, 160-220 AD, translated tribas (a masculine woman) as frictrix. 7) hetairistriai - women who are attracted to other women, used by Plato"s character Aristophanes, in The Symposium. May also refer to hyper-masculine women, from Lucian"s Dialogue of the Courtesans, cited by Brooten, p. 52. 8) kinaidos " a word for effeminate, _4;^3;_7;^5;_3;^8;_9;`2; or k"naidoi (cinaedus in its Latinized form), a man "whose most salient feature was a supposedly feminine love of being sexually penetrated by other men." Winkler, John J., 1990, The Constraints of Desire: The Anthropology of Sex and Gender in Ancient Greece, New York: Routledge. But he didn't use ANY of these words! He made up a new word that we cannot cross-reference the meaning. If you believe you have evidence that you know for certain what that word means, alert the media, because know one knows for certain what he meant. One thing is for certain, he could have chosen ANY of the words I just listed and this conversation would be over.A279; " "Now that we have cleared that up, since I love my neighbor as myself, you still have not shown evidence of how me loving another man is not "loving my neighbor as myself" as shown as the ONLY command we are told to keep as New Testament believers? ";)A279; As for Romans 1:26 ""For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men gave up the natural function of the woman and burned in their lust toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."" First of all, you can't "give up" something you never had in the first place. If I ask you for a million dollars, you can't "give it up" to me if you never had it, right? The use of the woman for gay men, is not NATURAL. Second of all, no one that I know of is defending LUST. Obviously these men were straight because they left the women in the name of LUST. That of course would be wrong. There was lust, promiscuity, and adultery going on in this passage. It is clearly not "loving your neighbor". We would never read a passage in the Bible about heterosexual lust and promiscuity and condemn all heterosexual marriages, would we? Now before you try to say that verse says that homosexuality goes against "NATURE": 1 Cor 11:113-15 says "Does not the very NATURE of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him..." Nature had to do with custom, not biology. Unless of course you believe that NATURE controls the length of a man's hair. It is the same Greek word for "nature/natural" in Greek translated in 1 Cor 11 as it is in Romans . "phusis " We are to interpret Scripture with other Scripture. A word cannot mean one thing in one verse and something else in another. None of these verses give clear condemnation of homosexuality. It only proves it is wrong in certain circumstances; just as heterosexuality is wrong in certain circumstances.A279; As for Jude, it was referring to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah which dealt with homosexual RAPE! No one that I know of is defending RAPE. Nice try, though..As for Romans 1:26 ""For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men gave up the natural function of the woman and burned in their lust toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."" First of all, you can't "give up" something you never had in the first place. If I ask you for a million dollars, you can't "give it up" to me if you never had it, right? The use of the woman for gay men, is not NATURAL. Second of all, no one that I know of is defending LUST. Obviously these men were straight because they left the women in the name of LUST. That of course would be wrong. There was lust, promiscuity, and adultery going on in this passage. It is clearly not "loving your neighbor". We would never read a passage in the Bible about heterosexual lust and promiscuity and condemn all heterosexual marriages, would we? Now before you try to say that verse says that homosexuality goes against "NATURE": 1 Cor 11:113-15 says "Does not the very NATURE of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him..." Nature had to do with custom, not biology. Unless of course you believe that NATURE controls the length of a man's hair. It is the same Greek word for "nature/natural" in Greek translated in 1 Cor 11 as it is in Romans . "phusis " We are to interpret Scripture with other Scripture. A word cannot mean one thing in one verse and something else in another. None of these verses give clear condemnation of homosexuality. It only proves it is wrong in certain circumstances; just as heterosexuality is wrong in certain circumstances.A279; As for Jude, it was referring to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah which dealt with homosexual RAPE! No one that I know of is defending RAPE. Nice try, though.. Copied from Jason Musser Thanks for immediately changing the subject from proving whether or not the word "ONLY" is in the text, as you claim to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. I will address it regardless and once I do and you cannot offer a rebuttal, at least it will be over and done with. First things first, Sodom and Gomorrah is not about 2 members of the same sex in a loving and committed relationship; "it's about RAPE! I can prove your hypocrisy here very easily: If the story was about HETEROSEXUAL RAPE, would you draw the conclusions that all hetero relationships/marriages were sinful as well? If not, why not? Second of all, the book of "Ezekiel tells us exactly why the city was destroyed Ezekiel 16:48-50, As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord " this was the sin of your sister Sodom: "She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. "They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Apparently ARROGANT, GREEDY, SELFISH, and FAT PEOPLE were the reasons the city was destroyed! Notice that 2 members of the same sex in a loving and committed relationship are never mentioned? Now, do you have have anything else but your own bigotry against homosexuals that you can offer as evidence that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is about 2 members of the same sex in a loving and committed relationship? ;) So what if God did speak to Paul? Most minister make the claim every Sunday that God spoke through them. Paul never claimed that He was speaking for God verbatim. Furthermore, every Christian is capable of hearing from God and He is able to speak through them. Did you just say "God's Word"???? If you are calling the Bible God's Word, I have a few questions for you , sweet heart. If you can show me just ONE VERSE that the ENTIRE BIBLE is the Word of God, I will convert. Furthermore one could make the argument that the Old Testament contains God's Word, but the New Testament is never called God's Word or even "scripture". Furthermore, Paul goes out of his way to show that not everything he is writing is from God. 1 Cor 7:12 where Paul says, "To the rest I speak, (I, not the Lord) if any man hath a virgin..." "1 Cor 7:25 ""Now concerning virgins I HAVE NO COMMANDMENT OF THE LORD, yet I give MY judgment..." 2 Cor 11:17, "That which I speak, I SPEAK NOT AFTER THE LORD, but as in foolishness, in the confidence of his glory." If the New Testament is God's Word or the "Holy Scriptures" , how do you reconcile these verses? " " " " " Furthermore, I find it interesting that in John 1:1 The "Word" is defined for us and there is no mention of the Bible (the word "Bible" isn't even in the Bible) and neither is the word "Scripture". It says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Drop down to verse 14, "The Word became flesh (Jesus) and dwelt among us..." "Since you claim to have the correct interpretation when it comes to Biblical teachings, I have a question for ya. Since you believe the Bible is the "Word" and John 1 says that the "Word" is God, then you must believe the Bible is GOD in book form! If not, why not?A279; A trio of Iowa-based religious scholars penned an op-ed, reminding readers that despite popular opinion, the Bible does not simply define marriage as between one man and one woman. The argument against same-sex marriage is wholly unsustainable debate about marriage equality often centers, however discretely, on an appeal to the Bible. Unfortunately, such appeals often reflect a lack of biblical literacy on the part of those who use that complex collection of texts as an authority to enact modern social policy. The Bible's definition of marriage can be confusing and contradictory. A primary example of this is the religious book's stance on polygamy, a practice that was embraced by prominent biblical figures Abraham and David. Various Bible passages mention not only traditional monogamy, but also self-induced castration and celibacy, as well as the practice of wedding rape victims to their rapists. There are some people he may never be able to convince. Many politicians have made a career out of using the Bible to justify opposition to hot-button topics like same sex marriage. Those that use the Bible aren't necessarily interested in the truth or the complexity of the Bible. They are looking for one ancient sound bite to convince people what they already believe. Anyone who argues that "the Bible speaks plainly on one issue, especially something as complicated as marriage ... haven't take the time to read all of it. Im not tired of cutting and pasting. Homosexuality is not a sin May God show you the truth