From: mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server)
Subject: Re: homosexual issues in Christianity
Lines: 76

whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell) sent in a list of verses 
which he felt condemn homosexuality.  mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) wrote in 
response that some of these verses "are used against us only through incredibly 
perverse interpretations" and that others "simply do not address the issues."

In response, I wrote:
>I can see that some of the above verses do not clearly address the issues, 
>however, a couple of them seem as though they do not require "incredibly 
>perverse interpretations" in order to be seen as condemning homosexuality.
> 
>"... Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, 
>nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, 
>nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom  of God.  And such were 
>some of you..."  I Cor. 6:9-11.
> 
>Would someone care to comment on the fact that the above seems to say
>fornicators will not inherit the kingdom of God?  How does this apply
>to homosexuals?  I understand "fornication" to be sex outside of
>marriage.  Is this an accurate definition?  Is there any such thing as
>same-sex marriage in the Bible?  My understanding has always been that
>the New Testament blesses sexual intercourse only between a husband
>and his wife.  I am, however, willing to listen to Scriptural evidence
>to the contrary.
[remainder of my post deleted]  The moderator then made some comments I would 
like to address:

>[There's some ambiguity about the meaning of the words in the passage
>you quote.  Both liberal and conservative sources seem to agree that
>"homosexual" is not the general term for homosexuals, but is likely to
>have a meaning like homosexual prostitute.  That doesn't meant that I
>think all the Biblical evidence vanishes, but the nature of the
>evidence is such that you can't just quote one verse and solve things.

If you are referring to the terms "effeminate" and "homosexuals" in
the above passage, I agree that the accuracy of the translation has
been challenged.  However, I was simply commenting on the charge that
it is an "incredibly perverse" interpretation to read this as a
condemnation of homosexuality.  Such a charge seems to imply that no
reasonable person would ever conclude from the verse that Paul
intended to condemn homosexuality; however, I think I can see how a
reasonable person might very well take this view of the verse.
Therefore I do not believe it is "incredibly perverse" to read it in
this way.

>I think your argument from fornication is circular.  Why is
>homosexuality wrong?  Because it's fornication.  Why is it
>fornication?  Because they're not married.  Why aren't they married?
>Because the church refuses to do a marriage ceremony. Why does the
>church refuse to do a marriage ceremony?  Because homosexuality is
>wrong.  In order to break the circle there's got to be some other
>reason to think homosexuality is wrong.
> 
>--clh]

Actually, I wasn't thinking of the church at all.  After all, a couple
doesn't have to be married by a minister.  A secular justice of the
peace could do the job, and the two people would be married.  My point
was that it is easy to find a biblical basis for heterosexual
marriage, but where in the Bible would one get a Christian marriage
between two people of the same sex?  And if you do see a biblical
basis for same-sex marriages, how willing would gay Christians be to
"save themselves" for such a marriage and to never have sexual
intercourse with anyone outside of that marriage relationship?  Please
note that I am not trying to imply that gay Christians would not be
willing to be so monogamous, I am genuinely interested in hearing
opinions on the subject.  I have heard comments from gays in the past
that lead me to believe they regard promiscuity as one of the main
points of being homosexual, yet I tend to doubt that gays who want to
be Christian would advocate such a position.  So what is the gay view?

- Mark

[Yes, I agree that a reasonable person might conclude that Paul is
condemning homosexuality.  I was responding to certain details of
your posting.  That doesn't mean I agree with Michael in all
respects.  --clh]