Traditional marriage supporters have presented a view, complete with foundational principles, for state recognition of conjugal marriage while same-sex marriage supporters have failed to answer two questions that are central to the issue. Traditional marriage TM supporters have explained their view of what marriage is, why it matters for society and why government should recognize traditional marriage, for example, herehereand here. Same-sex marriage SSM supporters, on the other hand, have failed to address why they believe that reasoning is invalid, and to answer these two questions put to them by TM supporters: Since the debate is about state recognition of marriage, not what religious groups are able to do in the privacy of their congregations, each side of the debate should answer:
Today, however, some are reinterpreting the Bible to allow for the practice. Because of space limitations I can only summarize and respond to some of the major scriptural arguments justifying pro-gay theology. Those who seek more information may want to consult the in-depth analysis and evaluation provided in some other excellent works.
Proponents either maintain that the Bible is "silent" on the issue or that scriptural passages which condemn homosexuality Gen 19 [cf. Jude 7; 2 Pet 2: Response to Argument One writer has correctly noted: If Jesus Christ, the founder of biblical Christianity, was silent on the issue of homosexuality, why should we go beyond our Master by condemning the practice?
The lack of record in the Gospels of a statement from Christ on homosexuality does not mean that He never addressed it during His earthly ministry. According to John, if the Gospel writers had attempted to record all the works of Christ, the world could not contain all the books John The fact that one section of the Bible says nothing explicitly on a subject does not mean the other sections are silent.
Furthermore, it is incorrect to say that Jesus is silent on homosexuality. They claim that even if the Bible writers did condemn homosexuality as we know it today i.
They were wrong on many things, including the practice of slavery, polygamy, and the subjugation of women. The Bible writers condemned homosexuality of itself.
Third, the suggestion that the Bible writers were wrong on a number of issues arises from contemporary higher criticism the so-called historical-critical method. In an earlier work I have challenged this discredited method of liberal interpretation as incompatible with the tenets of biblical Christianity.
But they did repeatedly condemn the practice of homosexuality see, for example, Lev It is a mistake to think that the Bible does not speak directly to the matter of consensual or choice sex between persons of the same gender.
The fact that the Bible warns against it, and imposes punishment upon those who engage in the practice Lev The sanctions for same-gender sex would be meaningless if homosexuality was not a matter of choice.
Moreover, the Bible does not support the use of the term orientation as a shelter to escape the consequences of a deliberate choice. The Hebrew word that comes closest in meaning to the modern nuances of orientation is the term yetser.
The sin condition yetser is the foundation for homosexual conduct as it is for all sin. The individual is morally responsible for this inclination, which can be directed toward either good or evil, toward the Spirit or the flesh Rom 8. In the Bible, the cause for all violations against the divine standard is ultimately traceable to the mind-set of the individual: Thus not some but all of the passages relating to same-gender sexual intercourse are categorically against it.
There are no seams in the biblical view. No concession is made to semantic labels. A bottle of poison labeled with anything but the customary skull and bones is more dangerous to society, not less so.
No reference to causes, apart from the one located in the mind-set of the individual, can be found in the biblical text. Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them" Gen Some assert that the Hebrew word yadah, which is translated "have sex with" or "know" in KJV appears times in the Old Testament, and carries sexual meaning only about ten times.
Furthermore, even if they had sexual intentions, the condemnation of their action would be the condemnation of homosexual gang rape, not of a consensual homosexuality as such.
Indeed, Sodom was destroyed because of pride and inhospitality cf. But it is a false distinction to separate inhospitality from sexual sin. What the men of Sodom sought to do was another form of inhospitality. The city was punished also because of its abominations Ezek The argument is circular: marriage is between a man and a woman because it's between two people capable of reproducing, i.e.
a man and a woman. And we can change the definition of marriage if. Legal binding marriage between two homosexuals nowadays, Argument Analysis on Gay Marriage.
On the other hand there are also many down sides such as being made fun of just for being homosexual, and not being able to have your own kids. Jan 16, · This morning’s oral argument in Hall v. Hall addressed two related issues.
One is the effect of consolidating separate civil actions and whether they become a single action or retain separate identities. The second is how that affects the timing of and obligation to appeal. The justices pushed. The combination of the two terms arsen (male) and koite (bed) does not even suggest prostitution, rape or idolatry--only sexual contact between two men.
In other words, homosexuality is wrong, regardless of the reason why it is practiced.
Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.
The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women.
Aug 29, · Traditional marriage supporters have presented a view, complete with foundational principles, for state recognition of conjugal marriage while same-sex marriage supporters have failed to answer two questions that are central to the issue.