It doesn’t matter. Part (a) of my definition could include “between a man and a woman” and it would be of no consequence to my argument, because the purpose of my argument is to claim that parts (a) and (b) are separate in the first place. In other words (as I argue later) the contents of part (a) can include whatever you believe to be necessary to constitute marriage and not be incompatible with part (b).

I hope this helps you to understand my point.

As you have employed your own definition of marriage, of course you can create an argument. Your definition of

“a) the process of making a moral promise to another individual, possibly including a promise made to God”

does not contain the words “between a man and a woman”.

I don’t know what you prove by starting off with a reworked definition other than you can be consistant with yourself.

PPS John, right or wrong I do see you standing up for those who are often abused by loveless use of scripture and ungodly hatred – where the bible teaches love. While I do not agree with your ultimate aim, I do commend your motives, if I may do so without for a second being patronising.

Regarding what “harm” gay folk are causing me that is not the way I frame the matter.
For me the most important point is whether the bible is true.
I do not have “blind” faith but revisit the bible on each new issue to see if it stands up. So far I find that it does.
But also, I am interested to see how well people with very fixed views on the matter understand the real issues, because I live in a democracy where I must live under the result of their voting.

You said: “Despite what you may think, nobody is going to legalize paedophilia as a result of allowing homosexuals to live free of such condemnation – as an avid current affairs watcher I can assure you of that.”

Actually John that is quite an unfair summary of what I said/meant. I did not make a cause and effect connection between gay rights and paedophilia; my point was that if we have no definitive standard of morals then pedophilia may eventually become “moral”.
The focus was the lack of absolute morality, not gay rights campaigning.
Finally, I just dont believe you are right on this; I do believe attempts will be made to legalize pedophilia in the near future.
I could point you to the website of a leading UK gay rights campaigner today who wants a boy of 14 to be able to be able to legally have sex with a man. And the campaigner endorses the boy’s sex life having begun at 8 years old!
Again John, thanks for your time and informed discussion.
Best regards
PB

My answer to you is simply that it appears homosexual orientation happens, and while psychological considerations may be interesting academically (and if that is what you’re interested in, then there are many publications available to you to satisfy that interest), I don’t understand what harm they are causing to nonconsenting third parties like yourself, or why someone as obviously capable of rational thought as you appears to be keen to devote so much thought to what is such a non-issue. Despite what you may think, nobody is going to legalize paedophilia as a result of allowing homosexuals to live free of such condemnation – as an avid current affairs watcher I can assure you of that.

Checked out the website and it was quite interesting with many valid points to criticise the church regarding overconfident biblical interpretation and lack of sensitivity to gay people.

But there also appear to be a few corking errors;

The website says the bible does not say Sodom was detroyed for sexual sin: “The books of the prophets Ezekiel, Isaiah and Jeremiah list the specific sins for which Sodom was destroyed. They list arrogance, adultery, oppression of the poor, insincere religion and political corruption. Homosexuality is NOT mentioned. In Luke 10:10-13, Jesus clearly states that the sin of Sodom was INHOSPITALITY.”

ERROR 1: Where you find oppression, false religion and corruption you will find many sins. But Jude 1:7 clearly states Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed PRIMARILY for perversion: “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.”

ERROR 2: Jesus does not clearly state the sin of Sodom was inhospitality; this is false. In fact he said it would be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgement than for the towns that rejected his disciples. No mention of hospitality whatsoever.

ERROR 3: The website says Christ had nothing to say about homosexuality, but he explicity attested to the historical fact of judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah. With Jude confirming Sodom and Gomorrah’s sin was perversion, it is very logical to read Christ as confirming the traditionally understood reason for their judgement (only contested since 1955 I believe), but difficult to read the passage otherwise. Also, Christ reaffirmed the traditional heterosexual marrige in his teaching on divorce. He never hinted homosexuality was acceptable.

ERROR 3: The website says: “St. Paul was suspicious, fearful and disapproving of ALL sexual acts.” Sorry but I have to say this is rubbish. Paul did say in 1 Cor 7 he would prefer people stayed single to serve the Lord freely, but he also accepted only some were gifted that way. He explicitly tells couples not to deprive one another of sex and to render due affection to one another.

ERROR 4: And the webiste says: “No one knows how or why homosexual orientation happens.”
I have to say even my Encyclopaedia Brittannica cites much research on the causes of homosexuality and it is simply not good enough to say nobody knows why it happens. You can’t just pretend that level of research does not exist or that it is only “feelings” as this site continues. Contest it, fine, but pretend it is not there and I have lost all intellectual respect for you.

Also, the website brings up the old Chestnut about slavery, which I have touched on in an earlier entry above and find highly questionable, as explained.

Overall John, I am no scholar but I expected much more from this link.
Yours, confused.
PB

Your question about moral standards is a complicated one, and I couldn’t do it justice here. But it’s true that we all have competing sources feeding our moral drive: reason, conscience, faith, etc. The trick is to identify which is worth listening to and why. At this point theologically I find myself somewhere in the post-evangelical Christian bloc.

John, have you ever read these verses for yourself first hand and can you tell me how they
can have a meaning other than their face values? WHile I am asking this I accept 100% that
many people say the bible has no authority and therefore such people hold these excerpts irrelevant.
Best
PB

Gen 13:13
13 Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD.

Gen 18:20
Then the LORD said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and
their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is
as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

Gen 19:4
Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 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.”
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who
have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under
the protection of my roof.”

New Testament, Jude 1:7
In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who
suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
ENDS

ie This is what I mean when I say “What is truth?”
Best
PB

The “Truth” is that you haven’t done that yet!

That said, there are people who take your approach to biblical hermeneutics who do not believe that the bible condemns homosexuality – indeed there are Reformed theologians who are openly gay (celebrated Baptist pastor Roy Clements springs to mind). Another group that would share your approach to biblical interpretation but disagree that the bible condemns homosexuality is this one, by Christians who see no conflict between their faith and their sexuality, and provide numerous alternative interpretations of the verses you cite.

2) Has homosexuality been proven to be genetic?
Your understanding here matches mine, but I am astounded at the apparent majority of educated people who believe it has been proven to be genetic, largely, I believe down to media exaggeration on current research (anything for a story) and strong media lobbying. How can a genetic aversion to sexual reproduction survive in the human gene pool, I often wonder?

3) Can the bible be interpreted to support homosexuality?
I believe that taken together and using the whole bible as a whole, God’s word does say homosexuality wounds him in failing his purpose for mankind. Christ also says heaven and earth will pass away but his words will go on forever; a theme oft repeated. The type of guidelines you talk about on lobster, shrimp and pork still have a strong proven public health logic behind them today. But these were under the Old Covenant of the Old Testament. The New Testament makes it very clear these things are not binding on those under the New Covenant, however homosexuality is still identified as sin numerous times in the New Testament. If you read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in the OT you will see explicitly that gangs of gay men tried to gang rape two angels. But Christ said it would be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of Judgment than the towns which rejected his disciples and his Good News. Taken together therefore, it just does not seem logical to say the sin of Sodom was lack of hospitality. Any thoughts?

4) Is homosexuality fixed or fluid?
Again I am surprised how similar our understanding is here; we all know of people who have changed orientation. Some gay rights leaders point out the reason the gay gene is so contested is because if it is found, gays can have no “excuse” for their behaviour (their argument, not mine). But, and this is a strong point today, some gay leaders say people have a human right to a gay lifestyle regardless of their motivation. I have read some research shows public opinion is much less sympathetic to gay rights when people believe it is a lifestyle choice, so this would explain why the gay gene is so contested; the aim is control of legislation by gay and anti-gay lobbies.
Now debating the morals of homosexuality is the really tough nut; if we have no agreed standard of morality we will never agree. John, if I may ask, do you believe in God and how do you get access to him? Where do you get your moral standards and is this source reliable?
It seems apparent to me that we all seek evidence to shore up our own belief systems because it would be pretty stressful to be regulalry undermined and have to start again. Doesn’t this take us back to Pilate’s question – and yours about morality – “What is truth?”
Best
PB

1) Does the bible support slavery?
I’m not sure that the bible is intended to be read as an endorsement or rejection of any particular thing – it certainly documents slavery, though I’m not sure you could say that 66 separate ancient texts could somehow be strung together to “support” OR condemn anything as a singular instrument in and of itself. It takes an interpretative hermeneutical approach combined with contemporary belief and teaching to do that.

2) Has homosexuality been proven to be genetic?
Here I believe the answer is probably ‘No’. Although neurologist Simon LeVay conducted research which showed physiological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, he did not prove that these were genetic differences which were present from birth. Of course that doesn’t preclude the possibility that there IS a ‘gay gene’, and we must always be open to that possibility proving itself.

3) Can the bible be interpreted to support homosexuality?
I don’t believe so. I also think it doesn’t specifically condemn it. Again, the bible cannot be read in the way you appear to want to read it – as a paper written to teach X, Y or Z to you, today, about homosexuality and any other number of things. The bible was written to other people for reasons of a specific historical context. For example, reading parts of Leviticus which appear to condemn homoseuxality as if they are written to us today is ludicrous – Leviticus was written for Middle Eastern Jews BC. It also condemns eating rabbit, lobster, shrimp, pork and wearing red dresses. When we go to how Jesus himself interpreted some of the Old Testament, for example in Luke, he states that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality, not, errr, sodomy.

4) Is homosexuality fixed or fluid?
If I get you right here, I’d say the answer is that it appears to be somewhat ‘fluid’ – people have changed sexual orientation, there appear to be degrees of sexual orientation in many people, etc.etc. But saying that it is fixed OR fluid doesn’t particularly help either the gay rights OR the anti-gay activists…. in either case the issue still to be debated is whether homosexual acts are moral or immoral, and why.

I appreciate your visit to Libertarian Reason and hope that these quick answers are helpful. Feel free to stick around.

#1 Does the bible support support slavery?
#2 Has homosexuality been proven to be genetic?
#2 Can the bible be interpreted to support homosexuality?
#4 Is sexuality fixed or fluid?

Cheers
PB