Debunking GayChristian101’s ‘Alternative’ Marriage in the Bible (Especially on David and Jonathan’s Alleged ‘Marriage’)

Extended from a comment I made.

An article at GayChristian101, Marriage in the Bible, attempts to provide several examples of unusual types of marriage found in the Bible.

The main purpose of providing these examples, as you probably could guess from the site name, is to argue for the legitimacy of homosexual marriage in the Bible.

(Why homosexual marriage, and not just relationship ? As I explain under the Jesus and God sections of Bible Passages That Oppose Homosexuality, Christianity rejects all sexual contact outside of marriage. And if a man cannot marry a man, then any sexual contact between them will always be immoral.)

The alternative types of marriage cited are:

1) Polygamy (Lamech, Esau, Jacob etc.)

2) Kinsman redeemer marriage (if a man dies with no offspring, the brother must marry the widow to provide offspring – e.g. Onan, story of Ruth)

3) ‘Marriage’ to servants (Abraham with Hagar, not included by site: Jacob’s children by Rachel and Leah’s servants who gave rise to the Twelve Tribes of Israel)

4) Prisoner of war marriage (Israelites took Midianite virgins, Numbers 31:1-18)

5) Slave marriage (Master can sell slave’s family, Exodus 21:1-6)

6) Homosexual ‘marriage’ (David and Jonathan)

Having read through the list, I found plenty of flaws in the arguments presented. But all of them pale in comparison to the VERY DECEPTIVE ARGUMENT I found in Example 6, as I detail in POINT ONE.

Read on…

———————————————————–

POINT ONE – David and Jonathan were never married

Most importantly, Example 6 – that of purported homosexual ‘marriage’ – is skewed totally out of context.

This is what the GayChristian101 article presents:

6. Same sex marriage. The partnership of Jonathan and David is an example of same sex marriage in the Bible. Jonathan’s father referred to David as his son in law in I Samuel 18:21.

With screen-captured evidence in context here:

I was dumbfounded by the murderous ripping of the verse out of all recognizable context. You will be too after you compare the above argument with the actual Bible passage:

17 Saul said to David, “Here is my older daughter Merab. I will give her to you in marriage; only serve me bravely and fight the battles of the LORD.” For Saul said to himself, “I will not raise a hand against him. Let the Philistines do that!”

18 But David said to Saul, “Who am I, and what is my family or my father’s clan in Israel, that I should become the king’s son-in-law?” 19 So [e] when the time came for Merab, Saul’s daughter, to be given to David, she was given in marriage to Adriel of Meholah.

20 Now Saul’s daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 21 “I will give her to him,” he thought, “so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him.” So Saul said to David, “Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law.”

22 Then Saul ordered his attendants: “Speak to David privately and say, ‘Look, the king is pleased with you, and his attendants all like you; now become his son-in-law.’” – 1 Samuel 18:17-22

Immediately, anyone can see that David was considered to have the potential to be Saul’s son-in-law because Saul intended David to marry his daughter, Michal! (They do get married later in the chapter.)

And as a later commentor prompted me to take another look at ‘potential’, look at verse 18. David considers himself unworthy to become the king’s son-in-law. Now if David were already ‘married’ to Jonathan – or any other member of Saul’s family – why would David still consider himself unworthy to be part of the king’s family?

Instead of showing the actual verse which would immediately debunk the argument all on its own, the GayChristian101 article gives its own summary of the ‘David is Saul’s son-in-law’ passage along with some description of how David and Jonathan shared a homosexual love.

In fact, this misuse of Scripture is so blatant (you don’t even have to dig around to find that Saul meant David to marry his daughter, it’s right before the cited verse), it almost seems intentional – as if the writer’s whole strategy is to rely on the hope that no one would bother to open up their Bibles and check the verses.

But the site attempts to make Example 6 weightier through a link, where it argues that the Bible only says that David was pleased to become Saul’s son-in-law, and then explains that this was because David wanted to be near Jonathan. But does this at all equate to ‘homosexual marriage’?

A comment by Rick Brentlinger further argues that David has a ‘second opportunity’ to be Saul’s son-in-law, thus meaning that David actually ‘marries’ Jonathan after marrying Michal.

But I quickly pointed out that the keyword is ‘opportunity’, meaning that the first chance (by marrying Merab) was not taken.

Quite simply put, David was given the chance to marry Merab and become Saul’s son-in-law, but he refused. Then David was given the chance to marry Michal, that is, the second chance.

Rick Brentlinger and GayChristian101 simply and blatantly ignore the context of the verse to draw a conclusion that suits the homosexual agenda.

———————————————————–

POINT TWO – Whatever the other examples legitimize, it is not homosexual marriage

Once this sixth example has been shown to be terribly misguided, none of the other five examples serve to support the idea of God and Bible legitimized homosexual marriage.

None of the cited examples except the refuted sixth example show homosexual relationships, but relationships between men and women. Whether they are multiple wives, servants or slaves, they are still WOMEN.

Even of all the first five examples were legitimate marriage contracts today (see fourth point), they would all be the basis for HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS.

Of course, the article’s focus is to argue that since mainstream Christians judge these unusual marriages from our cultural points of view, we are also judging homosexuality from a cultural (not Scriptural) point of view.

To quote Rick Brentlinger again:

I’m not arguing that all other types of marriage are necessarily legitimate today. I’m making the case that God blessed marriages different than the Adam and Eve marriage paradigm, therefore Complementarianism (the belief that God will only bless marriages like the Adam and Eve model) was not a belief of our pre-Christian spiritual ancestors, neither is it God’s truth for today.

But once more, even if modern Christians were to accept these odd marriages simply because they are recorded in the Bible, we would have no similar reason to accept homosexual affairs outside of marriage – as there are NO EXAMPLES of homosexual marriage in the Bible.

Now see POINT THREE.

———————————————————–

POINT THREE – Not everything recorded in the Bible is condoned

The Bible does not automatically condone something, just because it records the event.

I don’t know how many times I have to explain this simple-as-rock concept to polemicists! Just because history books accurately record the Nazi Holocaust, does this mean that the history books condone genocide and racism?

The same standard applies to the Bible. The Bible records things like disobeying God, cheating God, lying to God, warring against God… Do you really think that this therefore means that God approves of these sins against Him?

So apply this principle to the six examples given. While some of the examples have a clear God-given directive (Midianite virgins), most do not (multiple wives, Abraham’s child by Hagar, the alleged David-Jonathan homosexual relationship).

They are merely faithful records of what transpired, with no say from God or the author as to whether the act was given approval or permission.

That is to say, these examples cannot and should not be taken as authoritative Biblical basis for unusual, non-heterosexual or non-monogamous marriage.

Remember that David also had an adulterous affair with Bathsheba, something no one sanely argues that the Bible condones.

———————————————————–

POINT FOUR – Whatever th Bible says of David and Jonathan, it does not record marriage

The site’s links cite that the Hebrew words used to describe David and Jonathan’s love as romantic, like the kind of love between a man and a woman. (But see the CLOSING POINT of my post.)

But even if David’s and Jonathan’s love had been of a romantic or sexual nature, it still would provide no basis for a Biblical homosexual MARRIAGE – the aim of the ‘Marriage in the Bible’ article.

Even if David and Jonathan had been romantically attracted, even if they had been sexually attracted, the Bible does not even record that they ever consumated these feelings – nore does it condone such feelings (the acting upon which would be punishable by death under Mosaic law).

And even if they had carried out such a forbidden and illegal physical act, it still does not equate to a MARRIAGE.

Not also that POINTTHREE applies again, in that even if they did do the dirty deed, the Bible in no way condones it.

———————————————————–

POINT FIVE – Does anyone really trust Saul as a good reference?

The article’s citation of Saul using a word inferring sexual intimacy when speaking of David and Jonathan’s relationship is questionable.

Saul’s anger flared up at Jonathan and he said to him, “You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Don’t I know that you have sided with the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of the mother who bore you?” – 1 Samuel 20:30

The link they provide gives no explanation for their claim that the Hebrew term used in the verse refers to sexual intimacy. None seems to be even remotely inferred in the NIV translation.

It can also be easily refuted using the argument of POINT THREE – not everything recorded by the Bible is condoned (in this case, Saul could have been mistaken or lying).

———————————————————–

POINT SIX – Old Testament, old school

All of the examples given are Old Testament ones. None occur after Jesus uttered His words as follows:

• Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” – Matthew 19:5-6

• “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” – Mark 10:6-9

From these passages, it can be inferred that Jesus was reaffirming the God-instated ideal of one man marrying one woman.

If not, why would He create just one man and one woman – instead of two men, or one man and two women?

• So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. – Genesis 1:27

• For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh – Genesis 2:24

And why can’t two men reproduce, if they are meant to fill the Earth in a perfect God-given plan?

• As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it.” – Genesis 9:7

Thus, the Christian concept of the New Testament completing and superceding the Old Testament means that the examples provided by the site can be dismissed on a Scriptural, not just cultural basis.

———————————————————–

POINT SEVEN – Old Testament, School of Very Very Hard Knocks

Most tellingly, the whole article focuses on Old Testament examples of ‘alternative marriages’ and criticizes mainstream Christians for deciding their doctrine on ‘cultural basis’.

But if the Old Testament is taken as an authoritative source, what about all the hardline warnings against homosexuality?

• Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. – Leviticus 18:22

• If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. – Leviticus 20:13

• Judah did evil in the eyes of the LORD. By the sins they committed they stirred up his jealous anger more than their fathers had done. There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites. – 1st Kings 14:22,24

• Asa did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, as his father David had done. He expelled the male shrine prostitutes from the land and got rid of all the idols his fathers had made. – 1st Kings 15:11-12

• The king stood by the pillar and renewed the covenant in the presence of the LORD – to follow the LORD and keep his commands, regulations and decrees with all his heart and all his soul, thus confirming the words of the covenant written in this book. He also tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes, which were in the temple of the LORD and where women did weaving for Asherah. – 2 Kings 23:3, 7

Rick Brentlinger uses the same old argument that every single reference to ‘homosexuality’ in not just the New Testament, but also the Old Testament actually mean ‘shrine prostitution’.

But how does this explain away all the various terms used to describe homosexual acts, such as a ‘man lying with a man’? And note that shrine prostitution is itself directly addressed in 1st Kings in different terms from ‘ordinary’ homosexuality.

See also the CLOSING POINT below.

———————————————————–

CLOSING POINT

In conclusion, I have a burden to share on something the faux-pas of POINT ONE made me think about. Whether this was a mistake out of ignorance or if it was an intentional attempt at deception, I will not conjecture.

But it makes you wonder: If the pro-homosexual apologists can make a totally invalid argument like this, what does it say of the validity of their other arguments, such as ‘The act condemned in the Bible doesn’t mean homosexuals, but male prostitutes‘, or the article’s claim that ‘The Hebrew words used to describe Jonathan and David’s love indicate romantic, emotional attachment’ ?

Bible Passages That Oppose Homosexuality – Including the Words of Jesus and God Himself

DISCLAIMER: The blog author does not in any way hate or socially discriminate against homosexual persons or their civic rights.

In the following post, he merely points out the Scriptural basis for the rejection of homosexual behaviour in Conservative mainstream Christianity. Modern socio-cultural issues related to the issue are not adressed here.

The blog author also fully supports the civil rights of each person of any religion, lifestyle or politics to practise his or her beliefs without infringing on the rights and freedoms of others.

However, he draws the line at churches, groups or individuals that make the claim of homosexuality being permitted or condoned by the Bible and Christianity – as they are in essence saying that every other church (which follows the traditional, mainstream and Scripturally-backed belief that homosexuality is a sin) IS WRONG, MISGUIDED AND HATEFULLY DISCRIMINATORY. This borders on libel and slander.

Although the blog author may not ‘understand’ the feelings and real-life challenges faced by homosexual persons, the following post does not make any claim to do so – the discussion that follows focuses only on Bible Scripture, of which the blog author believes that his understanding is adequate and correct in the case of the citations below.

———————————————-

OLD TESTAMENT – LAWS OF MOSES

• The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom – both young and old – surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens – Genesis 19:1,4,5,24. The story of Sodom from which we get the word sodomy (i.e. ass-banditry).

And yes, I am aware of the argument that “Sodom’s sin was about not showing hospitality, not about homosexuality”. See excerpt from this article in response:

Citing Mark Jordan’s The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology, Kristof states as fact that “it was only in the 11th century that theologians began to condemn homosexuality as sodomy.” The true facts are that, long before the 11th century, a number of early Jewish and Christian writers picked up on the male-male sexual activity of the Sodomites as inherently degrading. In the 1st century (A.D.) alone, one can cite among others: Philo, Josephus, and, some critics to the contrary, Jude 7 and 2 Peter 2:6-10 (on the last two texts go here, pp. 10-13, or here, section V.). Ezekiel, back in the 6th century B.C., knew the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17-24), or a precursor document, and interpreted the Sodom story in part through the lens of the absolute Levitical prohibitions against male-male intercourse (18:22; 20:13). When Ezekiel 16:49-50 describes the sin of Sodom as “not aiding the poor and needy” and “committing an abomination,” it refers to two different offenses, as the list of vices in Ezekiel 18:12 makes clear when it distinguishes these two phrases.

The Deuteronomistic History (Joshua through 2 Kings), another work of the 6th century B.C., contains a parallel story to the story of Sodom; namely, the Levite at Gibeah (Judges 19:22-25). There can be little doubt that the male-male dimension of the threatened sexual activity factored prominently in the Deuteronomistic Historian’s indictment of the residents of Gibeah, given his apparent revulsion elsewhere in the History for the consensual homoerotic associations of the qedeshim (literally, “consecrated ones”), cult figures who sometimes served as the passive receptive partners in male-male intercourse.

…

Finally, to assume that the narrator of Genesis 19 would have been favorably disposed to an act of consensual male-male intercourse is absurd in view of ancient Near Eastern texts that held in low repute men who willingly consented to be penetrated by other men.

• Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. – Leviticus 18:22

• If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. – Leviticus 20:13

• Judah did evil in the eyes of the LORD. By the sins they committed they stirred up his jealous anger more than their fathers had done. There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites. – 1st Kings 14:22,24

• Asa did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, as his father David had done. He expelled the male shrine prostitutes from the land and got rid of all the idols his fathers had made. – 1st Kings 15:11-12

• The king stood by the pillar and renewed the covenant in the presence of the LORD – to follow the LORD and keep his commands, regulations and decrees with all his heart and all his soul, thus confirming the words of the covenant written in this book. He also tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes, which were in the temple of the LORD and where women did weaving for Asherah. – 2 Kings 23:3, 7

It’s quite clear that for millennia, from the foundations of monotheistic worship of YHWH all the way up to modern conservative Judaism and Christianity, homosexuality has been SEVERELY frowned upon.

But in response to these very clear prohibitions, certain parties will argue that these 3000-year old laws are outdated and obsolete.

After all, modern Christians don’t follow the other laws such as not eating shellfish, observing the Sabbath on Saturday or stoning disobedient sons. (Explanation of why not can be found in this post.)

So why the particular discrimination against homosexuality when pork chop eaters get a free pass?

Let’s take a look at the New Testament then, which is where Christians get their doctrine…

———————————————-

NEW TESTAMENT – LETTERS OF PAUL

• Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. – Romans 1:26-27

• Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. – 1st Corinthians 6:9-10

Ah, but even here there are protests…

Certain groups again will object that fundamentalist, conservative, bigotedly anti-homosexual groups incorrectly translate those words of Paul. They contend that what he really objects to are not general homosexuals, but male prostitutes in the service of pagan worship that were previously mentioned in 1st and 2nd Kings above. They go even to the point of sueing Bibles for ‘discrimination’ against homosexuals.

Though frankly, how doing something that the pagans were detested by God for doing can ever be considered acceptable and holy before God is a mystery to me.

And also, if the word rendered ‘homosexuals’ actually means ‘male prostitutes’, then why does 1st Corinthians 6 list BOTH TERMS side by side as separate sins? And how does this explain away all the various terms used to describe homosexual acts, such as a ‘man lying with a man’ in the earlier OT examples?

But rational and logical objections to overturning 2000 years of accepted theology and doctrine aside, where does this leave us if both Moses and Paul are disbelieved?

Why, there is only…

———————————————-

THE MAN HIMSELF – JESUS CHRIST

Let’s now look at some words quoted directly from Jesus:

• “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.  – Matthew 5:27-28

• Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” – Matthew 19:5-6

• “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” – Mark 10:6-9

Waitaminnit… There’s nary a mention of male-male or female-female action there. What am I going on about by invoking the Appeal to Jesus argument?

But take a closer look at what Jesus is saying in Matthew 5. He is proclaiming the same stand which truly conservative Christians hold today – that any sexual contact outside of marriage, whether full penetration or ‘just looking/touching’, is a sin in God’s eyes. Even intentionally thinking naughty thoughts is a no-no bad thing.

Then look at Matthew 19 and Mark 10. Here Jesus says that marriage, as ordained by God Himself, is between a man and a woman.

And no, in the Hebrew and Greek, ‘wife’ always means ‘woman’ and never refers to the submissive male partner in a homosexual relationship. Contextual references here and here.

Jesus’ words echo the original marriage ordination by God when He first created Eve to be Adam’s spouse in Genesis 2 (see later on below), and this is further echoed by Paul who repeats the same words in 1st Corinthians 6:16 and Ephesians 5:31.

Dig even deeper into those verses – Jesus says ‘Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate’. In context, He was directly referring to the act of divorce, which desecrates the holy union of marriage.

But isn’t that also what homosexual pairings do? Replace God’s original plan for male-female marriage? Separate the traditional, God-ordained marriage institution by taking it apart it, to be put back together according to liberal humanist principles of relative morality?

So here we find the dilemma for homosexual pairings – The Biblical example only permits sexual contact within the marriage context, and the marriage context only permits man-woman pairings.

Therefore, any sexual contact between two males – or two females – is considered adultery in God’s eyes. 

By contrast, a male having sexual contact with a female would also be adultery, unless the two were married – but following Biblical principle, two males or two females cannot be joined in holy matrimony before God’s sight.

Remember too that Jesus was a great social reformer of the time. Even liberals and nonChristians agree so, taking Him as a societal rebel (though usually selectively excluding His accompanying Judaistic Monotheism background and His call to personal sacrifice and holiness).

Jesus overturned the prevailing social-religious-cultural norms of discriminating on the basis of gender, race, social standing and physical condition.

He taught by word and example that all people are equal in the eyes of God – equally loved, and equally forgiven if they simply accept His offer of redemption.

So here is the crux of the investigation: If Jesus was such a thorough reformer, why didn’t He make any mention of accepting homosexuality as well?

Instead, he uttered specific words that were specifically in line with the standard views of the time – heterosexual relationships only, within marriage only.

If Jesus was really supportive and accepting of homosexuality as certain parties argue, wouldn’t Matthew 19 and Mark 10 have been the perfect chance for Him to make known God the Father’s will?

• ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife or husband, and the two will become one flesh.’ – What Jesus did not say, not-Matthew 19 and not-Mark 10

But nope, not a peep from Jesus about demolishing prevailing 1st-Century era sexual-behaviour prejudices.

Could it be that Jesus DID NOT consider homosexuality to be holy and acceptable in God’s eyes? And thus, intentionally did not overturn the disapproving traditional attitudes towards homosexuality?

And if He did not update or correct the traditional Judaistic views on a certain matter, then we must assume that Jesus intended for those matters to remain in the status quo even after the move from Law to Grace.

Jesus taught that all people are equally loved and forgiven in the eyes of God – but He never condoned sin of any sort. Instead, He calls us to ‘Leave your life of sin’ if we want to genuinely follow Him.

———————————————-

AND FROM THE BIG MAN IN THE SKY…

With His words about ‘becoming one flesh’, Jesus echoes God’s original plan when He first created humankind:

• So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. – Genesis 1:27

• For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh – Genesis 2:24

As the meme goes, ‘God made them Adam and Eve… Not Adam and Steve.’

If God originally intended homosexuality to be the perfect, sinless plan, then why did He not just make all life of one gender? (Or for that matter, three or four genders?) Or with both sets of ‘equipment’ on each body?

And before you get into that ‘permitted because of the hardness of your heart’ argument stolen from Jesus’ words on divorce, God’s plans did not get thrown out the heavenly window with the Fall of Man:

• As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it.” – Genesis 9:7 (God speaking to Noah after the flood), i.e. long after Adam and Eve’s sin

How can two men or two women ‘be fruitful, increase in number and multiply on the earth’ when they cannot even propagate their genes (which as many pro-homosexual groups contend are the SOLE factor influencing sexual preference)?

Or if God’s original plan was for homosexuals to fill the earth, then why did He not design men to be able to procreate with men? 

Compare:

The above is an example of an idiotic plan for filling the earth with a certain species, one that any fool can see is doomed to cause extinction within a single generation. 

And note that as the Hyper-Intelligent Designer who carefully planned out the entire universe and all life (at least, as fundamentalist Christians believe), God is not an idiot.

And if God intentionally designed humans to be homosexual, then why, of all things, would he design men in such a way that the most intimate act of love would have to involve sticking one’s most sensitive member into another’s orifice that is used for expelling filthy, smelly faeces out, not letting things in???

Not to mention to un-intelligent design mistake of the rectal walls being thin and easily torn by insertion of any objects, leading to bleeding and thus to the HIV infection rate being highest among gay men (60 times greater than for the general population) and 72% of HIV infections among 27,455 surveyed males being caused by homosexual encounters?

And that’s not delving into the lack of intentional biological design that allows penetration in the case of two women attempting actual intercourse.

———————————————-

IN CONCLUSION

Christianity is not the lovey-lovey, nicey-accepty, let’s-just-all-be-friends religion that shallow modern culture makes it out to be. (It is very lovey-nicey-accepty-friendy, but just not in the way modern culture wants it to be.)

Christianity is a relationship with a God who tells the factual truth then way it is – whether you like it or not, your opinion does not change reality.

And according to God’s word aka the Bible, the reality is that homosexuality is a sin-warped perversion of God’s original perfect plan.

That’s the way I see it, and from my exegesis and hermeneutics of the Bible above, that’s the way it is. (You can check out a more official analysis at Bible.org.)

Comments and arguments are welcome.

PS. See also this excellent piece by Prof. Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon and this one by Prof. Kevin Lewis on the Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality, in particular as a refutation of the Newsweek propaganda about the Bible being pro-gay marriage.