But Writers Like Paul Didn’t Know Committed Same-Sex Relationships Could Exist

Please read the rules here before reading.

Ah, yes, the “committed same-sex relationships didn’t exist” argument.

What I believe this argument attempts to portray is that when the Bible condemns homosexual behavior (as if the revisionist would ever admit that), that it does so on the grounds that the behavior is lustful and objectifying. Seeing as there were no examples of committed and loving same-sex relationships, the biblical authors could not have imagined that they could exist and so did not think to specify what types of homosexual behavior were being condemned.

It’s a nice thought, isn’t it? That homosexual behavior, when done with commitment and fidelity isn’t actually wrong. The question is irrelevant, however, because it is the act that is condemned, not the intent. It doesn’t matter whether a homosexual act is committed in pure lust or whether there is commitment and monogamy in the act, the act still violates the natural order of the human body. The homosexual act still does not fall into the same category as the heterosexual act which God created when he made them male and female in Genesis and united them together with the command to be fruitful and multiply. And it doesn’t fit into the definition of marriage that Jesus gives. And that’s what really matters. Jesus tells us clearly what marriage is, what God intended marriage to be from the beginning because he is sick of his people destroying what God has created. Yet today, some of his people do the same thing. They don’t care what marriage was in the beginning. In the hardness of their hearts they try to take what belongs to God alone and shape into what they want. They pick the parts of marriage they like: mostly just commitment, discard the rest and then they call it marriage and cleverly say that the Apostle Paul would never have thought that they could do such a thing and thus his prohibition isn’t for them.

Commitment or no, Jesus Christ is emphatic in what marriage is and in defining what is he defines what is not.

Nice try. But no.

So this marks the end of the Bible part of month. There is tons more that could be said, more in depth study that could be presented, but I write a blog, not a book. I suggest that if you want to know more you look at rigorous scholarly material and specifically at Church documents, because only the Church is able to infallibly interpret Scripture. It is a spiritual book and it requires the Holy Spirit to interpret.

Next week will deviate slightly from the religious tone of the topic, and shift into the current secular approach to homosexuality and how it affects other Americans.

rainbow flag


6 thoughts on “But Writers Like Paul Didn’t Know Committed Same-Sex Relationships Could Exist

      • Hi people who won’t sell to gay couples. Meet your new friends, people who won’t sell to black people. I imagine you’ll get along fine. You have a lot in common.

        • See this is where dealing in facts would greatly help you understand the reality of the situation. Take the case of Barronelle Stutzman in Washington state. The plaintiffs in the case were longtime customers of hers before they sued her for refusing to provide flowers at their same-sex wedding.

          Clearly she had no problem serving gay people. What she had a problem with is using her artistic talents to function at an event that celebrates homosexuality. By associating her artwork with an event it lends the public to believe that she supports that event.

          Let’s assume that you are a baker, specializing in cakes. You feel strongly that religion is pretty much the cause of all that is wrong with the world. Violence, hatred, war, all of it can be blamed on religion. Fundamentalist Christian rejection of evolution enslaves future generations to fables that ignore facts. Now, as baker, you have Christian customers and you make them cakes to celebrate birthdays and special events in their lives, because those things don’t bother you. But one day one of your customers asks you to bake a cake that flies in the face of everything you believe in. The cake is for an event to promote strict 6-day creationism. The event is going to promote all sorts of gibberish about flood geology, dinosaurs and man walking side by side, and the unique genesis of each individual specie from non-living material. The question is this: do you have a right to follow your conscience in refusing to participate in an event that teaches the public falsehood according to your worldview? Rational reasoning tells us that “no, nobody has the right to force me to do something or associate the work of my hands with something I disagree with.” That is why there are conscientious objectors during times of war. That is why people lawfully protest the actions of the government, even if it means being run down by a tank, sprayed in the face with chemical weapons, or being thrown in the lion’s den.

          At that is precisely why gay marriage DOES affect the lives of other Americans. Americans in some states must choose between promoting something that violates their consciences and putting food on the table. Gay marriage advocates don’t stop at simple legal protections. Their goal is forced acceptance and compliance, and their weapon is taking food off the tables of other Americans. It’s childish, pathetic, and shows the lack of moral fiber of the movement.

          Lastly to equate the refusal to provide artistic services at a gay wedding to racism shows that you either incapable of understanding our side of the debate or you deliberately choose not to hear us out for your own political reasons. One is forgivable, the other is not.

          If you are not here to discuss, but simply interject comments without the intent to consider that there may be another valid viewpoint, there are better places for you to go, I hear tumblr is a great place for trolls, as are reddit and youtube.

          • “The question is this: do you have a right to follow your conscience in refusing to participate in an event that teaches the public falsehood according to your worldview?”

            I bake and sell them the cake, because the cake doesn’t teach their nonsense, and money is money.

          • That’s your choice to participate in an event you believe is false. And yes you have every right not to associate your name and your work to something you believe is false. How is that even a question?

            Money is money. Some people care more about their personal integrity than money.

Comments are closed.