Gay marriage

Originally posted by @divegeester
Your assumption is a stretch.

Besides I’m not against civil partnerships or homosexuals.

I didn't think you would be.

The OP asked for any scriptural support, so I was throwing some possibilities on the table.

How would you explain 'For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth'? (Taking into account the ancient understanding of 'natural eunuchs' )

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
I didn't think you would be.

The OP asked for any scriptural support, so I was throwing some possibilities on the table.

How would you explain 'For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth'?

Born without genitals.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
I didn't think you would be.

The OP asked for any scriptural support, so I was throwing some possibilities on the table.

How would you explain 'For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth'?

I can’t, but a lack of explaintion isn’t necessarily a void to be filled with a presumption which doesn’t fit with wider scripture.

Originally posted by @rajk999
Born without genitals.

From my earlier post:

'But Jesus mentions a third category — eunuchs who were born that way. Some might argue that Jesus was referring to males born without testicles, but this would be extremely rare. Moreover, this interpretation ignores how the term “born eunuchs” was used in other literature of the time.

In the ancient world, including ancient Jewish culture (as reflected in the Talmud), “natural” or “born” eunuchs were not associated with missing testicles. Rather, they were associated with stereotypically effeminate characteristics and behavior (just like modern gay men), and were thought by Rabbi Eliezer to be subject to “cure” (just like modern gays). Moreover, as we have also seen, eunuchs were commonly associated with homosexual desire.'

Originally posted by @divegeester
I can’t, but a lack of explaintion isn’t necessarily a void to be filled with a presumption which doesn’t fit with wider scripture.

It could, of course, simply be an indication that biblical scripture has no cohesion and is riddled with irreconcilable contradictions.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
From my earlier post:

'But Jesus mentions a third category — eunuchs who were born that way. Some might argue that Jesus was referring to males born without testicles, but this would be extremely rare. Moreover, this interpretation ignores how the term “born eunuchs” was used in other literature of the time.

In the ancient world, including an ...[text shortened]... gays). Moreover, as we have also seen, eunuchs were commonly associated with homosexual desire.'

Either way nothing in the explanation of the early Jewish culture which supports the idea that a life of homosexuality is not a sin.

Originally posted by @whodey
Some people are born gay?

Would you say that every gay person was born that way?

Nature or Nurture?

I was born straight. It is not something I ever chose to be.

Why would this be any different for a gay person?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
I was born straight. It is not something I ever chose to be.

Why would this be any different for a gay person?

In ancient Sparta and Greece homosexual interaction was the norm.

Now were they all genetically predisposed to this or was it learned or a combination of the two?

Originally posted by @whodey
Really? So gays can't control themselves but a heroin addict can?

Can you control your straightness?

Check...

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Can you control your straightness?

Check...

You tell me. Do you really think that the Greeks and Spartans were all genetically inclined to homosexual behavior?

And what of bisexuals? Are the incapable of being monogamous?

Personally, I think that a small percentage of people are inclined towards being homosexual, but for many, like the Greeks, it is socially mediated when normalized

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
It could, of course, simply be an indication that biblical scripture has no cohesion and is riddled with irreconcilable contradictions.

Your premise may hold discussion value, but this is not an example of it.

Originally posted by @whodey
You tell me. Do you really think that the Greeks and Spartans were all genetically inclined to homosexual behavior?

And what of bisexuals? Are the incapable of being monogamous?

Personally, I think that a small percentage of people are inclined towards being homosexual, but for many, like the Greeks, it is socially mediated when normalized

Why would a bisexual be any less capable of monogamy than a heterosexual? Are you daft enough to believe that a bisexual requires 2 partners on the go at the same time?


And heads up sir, this ain't ancient Greece or Sparta. (That comparison is tired and predictable).

Originally posted by @divegeester
I can’t, but a lack of explaintion isn’t necessarily a void to be filled with a presumption which doesn’t fit with wider scripture.

If you were to ask me to explain how everything came into existence, I could equally respond:

'I can't, but a lack of explanation isn’t necessarily a void to be filled with a presumption.'

(Hence refuting the 'Goddidit' argument).

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
If you were to ask me to explain how everything came into existence, I could equally respond:

'I can't, but a lack of explanation isn’t necessarily a void to be filled with a presumption.'

(Hence refuting the 'Goddidit' argument).

Science has all the answers. like how life started.

YouTube

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
If you were to ask me to explain how everything came into existence, I could equally respond:

'I can't, but a lack of explanation isn’t necessarily a void to be filled with a presumption.'

(Hence refuting the 'Goddidit' argument).

Agreed. But that still doesn’t support your premise here. 😉