Polygamy should be legal, but not gay marriage? (choice, church)

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by uss_bigd

I think you meant it was not condoned in the NT



If we read the passage below, homosexual "BEHAVIOR" was abominable, but not being gay.

1 Cor 6:9-11

'Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Romans 1:26-27

"26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Now where is the passage where lesbianism is either prohibited or an abomination?

[rheff78]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

Polygamy is never condemned in the Bible, and there are many examples of it there. Basically it's assumed as a normal, acceptable system throughout the Bible. Christians didn't turn against it for another 300 years or so after the Bible was pretty much done being written.

Of course, lesbianism isn't prohibited in the Bible either, and that doesn't prevent many Christians from opposing it, I have no idea why.

Stop bringing up lesbianism. It's not about you or your sexuality.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by rheff78

Stop bringing up lesbianism. It's not about you or your sexuality.

1. You appear to be suffering under the misapprehension that you are in charge.
2. The thread is about gay marriage. Lesbianism is a subset of gay. Therefore it is about that very thing.
3. When people ask me questions, or respond to my points, I think it's polite and considerate to respond in turn.

[rheff78]

1. I appear to be able to voice my opinions.
2. The thread is about why polygamy should be legal, not about lesbianism being accepted by the bible. Talk about gay marriage then, not about how lesbianism is ok.
3. We both know that's not true.

[Autodidact]

Voicing your opinion is not the same thing as telling me what to do. If you want to voice your opinion on any of these issues, feel free. You seem to think that there is no relationship between gay marriage and homosexuality. I disagree. Good manners prevent me from responding to your last point. Would they did the same for you.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

Thank you, uss. Yes, that is the only explicit mention of lesbianism in the entire Bible. As you can see, it is obviously not a prohibition, but a story. In the passage just previous, these people do stuff that God doesn't like, so he punishes the women by making them engage in sex which was not natural for them. This may have referred to lesbian sex, for heterosexual women that would be unnatural, or at least Paul would see it that way. Of course, by the same token, He would punish me by making me engage in heterosexual sex. In any case this is a God who knows how to prohibit things, "Thou shalt not..." There are 613 such commandments in the OT alone, and not one of them against this behavior. Further, bear in mind this is not God talking, it's just Paul, who, after all, is just some guy.

I see a parallel in the construction of this passage and Genesis 3:16-19. In the one case, "exchanging natural relations for unnatural ones" is described as the consequence of sin. In the other case, pain during childbirth and a life of toil are described as consequences of sin.

It seems like the argument put forward using the passage from Romans against homosexuality is that the consequences of sin are themselves sinful. If this is so, can we apply the same logic to Genesis and conclude that childbirth without anaesthetic and hard work are also sinful?

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

I see a parallel in the construction of this passage and Genesis 3:16-19. In the one case, "exchanging natural relations for unnatural ones" is described as the consequence of sin. In the other case, pain during childbirth and a life of toil are described as consequences of sin.

It seems like the argument put forward using the passage from Romans against homosexuality is that the consequences of sin are themselves sinful. If this is so, can we apply the same logic to Genesis and conclude that childbirth without anaesthetic and hard work are also sinful?

Yes, 9/10, some Christians have told me that the way they see it, God punishes sin by making you sin more, thereby eventually making you miserable as well as subject to eternal torment.

As an aside, God could punish me all day by making me live as a lesbian. "Whatever you do, don't throw me in that briar patch!"

[Sola'lor]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

Yes, 9/10, some Christians have told me that the way they see it, God punishes sin by making you sin more, thereby eventually making you miserable as well as subject to eternal torment.

Hmm. I've never heard that. Personally I believe that because God loves us He will give us the greatest amount of blessings when we do good and the least amount of punishment when we do bad.

[Bishka]

Originally Posted by rheff78

Stop bringing up lesbianism. It's not about you or your sexuality.

Actually it is.

As she has pointed out, lesbianism is part of being gay and part of being gay is addressing the issue of gay marriage.

As much as you want to wish away those links, they are still there.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by Bishka

Actually it is.

As she has pointed out, lesbianism is part of being gay and part of being gay is addressing the issue of gay marriage.

As much as you want to wish away those links, they are still there.

Thank you. Further, I didn't talk about me or my sexuality, I talked about the Bible.