Changes

The pro homosexual polemic controverts this, asserting that what Jesus was referencing to (“this saying”) was the '''kind''' of marriage, that being between male and female, to negate it's exclusivity as a type, when instead Jesus was referring to  the '''disciple's conclusion''' that being single was to be preferred, which had become the issue, in the light of the high standard of marriage commitment, that being  it's '''permanence'''. The homosexual polemic next supposes that the avocation of marriage due to intense longing in 1Cor. 7:9 must sanction same gender marriage, but fully consistent with all other teaching on marriage, it is only male and female who are to be joined in marriage here, and who are legally free to marry, and not to anyone who so desires. The sanction of marriage here does not abrogate the Biblical restrictions on marrying near kin, or another man's wife, or an animal, no matter how much one may long to do so, or between same genders. 1Cor. 7 also further establishes that “eunuchs” are those who are single and celibate. It should be added here that, as many Christians who have chosen that state can testify, this does not necessarily infer that this condition does not pertain to persons who could be married if they so choose, and have as much or more drive than others in regards to union, but that, like the passionate Paul, these can happily keep their body under subjection (1Cor. 9:27) as they seek and serve the LORD, who Himself was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin (Heb. 4:15).

The pro homosexual polemic controverts this, asserting that what Jesus was referencing to (“this saying”) was the '''kind''' of marriage, that being between male and female, to negate it's exclusivity as a type, when instead Jesus was referring to  the '''disciple's conclusion''' that being single was to be preferred, which had become the issue, in the light of the high standard of marriage commitment, that being  it's '''permanence'''. The homosexual polemic next supposes that the avocation of marriage due to intense longing in 1Cor. 7:9 must sanction same gender marriage, but fully consistent with all other teaching on marriage, it is only male and female who are to be joined in marriage here, and who are legally free to marry, and not to anyone who so desires. The sanction of marriage here does not abrogate the Biblical restrictions on marrying near kin, or another man's wife, or an animal, no matter how much one may long to do so, or between same genders. 1Cor. 7 also further establishes that “eunuchs” are those who are single and celibate. It should be added here that, as many Christians who have chosen that state can testify, this does not necessarily infer that this condition does not pertain to persons who could be married if they so choose, and have as much or more drive than others in regards to union, but that, like the passionate Paul, these can happily keep their body under subjection (1Cor. 9:27) as they seek and serve the LORD, who Himself was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin (Heb. 4:15).

The homosexual apologist knows that there no avocation of any same gender marriage, and thus employs another specious polemical tactic, which asserts that since that Jesus did not say that eunuchs must be celibate, that door is still open. Yet such an argument has about as much validity as saying that God never said you cannot marry a butterfly. One might postulate that since you can eat them why can't you marry them?  Or that the specific providence of plants and animals for food in Genesis 9:3 does not forbid “Christian cannibalism” as a way of life (as long as the subjects consented, the blood was drained, and were well cooked).<ref>even this may be seen as allowable by some in dire circumstances, as unlike homosexuality, there is no explicit injunction against it, but such could never be allowed as any manner of life.</ref> The facts are that the Bible only establishes marriage as between opposite genders, and wherever it explicitly deals with same gender sex then it condemns it. And when the New Testament deals with those whom the disciples saying (Mt. 19:10) applies, then it is celibacy. The precludes any need for an explicit statement such as “eunuchs are not to be married.”  Rather, it is such an explicit statement sanctioning  same sex marriage is what is  needed, but such cannot be seen anywhere, or derived by forcing sex into passages it does not belong.   

The homosexual apologist knows that there no avocation of any same gender marriage, and thus employs another specious polemical tactic, which asserts that since that Jesus did not say that eunuchs must be celibate, that door is still open. Yet such an argument has about as much validity as saying that God never said you cannot marry a gorilla. Or as another example of the law of purpose, in Gn. 9:3 God states man's need for food (sustenance, not medicine) was to be fulfilled by plants and animals, which eliminates cement as sustenance, no matter how much one might hypothetically crave it, though it is not expressly forbidden. But as this also does not explicitly forbid “Christian cannibalism” as a way of life (as long as the subjects consented, the blood was drained, and were well cooked),<ref>even this may be seen as allowable by some in life or death circumstances, as unlike homosexuality, there is no explicit injunction against it, but such could never be allowed as any manner of life as it is contrary in principal.</ref> then to be consistent, pro homosexual polemicists could argue for this as a lifestyle. The facts are that the Bible only establishes marriage as between opposite genders, and wherever it explicitly deals with same gender sex then it condemns it. And when the New Testament deals with those whom the disciples saying (Mt. 19:10) applies, then it evidences it only as celibacy. (1Cor. 7:2,7,32-37) The precludes any need for an explicit statement such as “eunuchs are not to be married.”  Rather, it is such an explicit statement sanctioning  same sex marriage is what is  needed, but such cannot be seen anywhere, or derived by forcing sex into passages it does not belong.   

Another tactic used in seeking to negate the exclusivity of opposite gender marriage, is to assert that  different types of marriage are allowed in Scripture, which is true, such as polygamy and concubines (a type of an economical wife, but a wife nonetheless). However, these were types of the original union, and they actually stand as an argument against same gender marriage, as in all manifest cases of sanctioned marriage, these are all between male and female counterparts, even though Solomon had 700 of the latter. In Mt. 19:3-8, Jesus revealed  that in the Old Testament God allowed Moses a degree of broadness as regards to the number of wives and the permanence of it, in condescension to their carnality, yet in bringing it back to it's original standard Jesus distinctly stated it was male and female which God joined together, and it is that union which alone is explicitly and abundantly affirmed throughout Scripture.   

Another tactic used in seeking to negate the exclusivity of opposite gender marriage, is to assert that  different types of marriage are allowed in Scripture, which is true, such as polygamy and concubines (a type of an economical wife, but a wife nonetheless). However, these were types of the original union, and they actually stand as an argument against same gender marriage, as in all manifest cases of sanctioned marriage, these are all between male and female counterparts, even though Solomon had 700 of the latter. In Mt. 19:3-8, Jesus revealed  that in the Old Testament God allowed Moses a degree of broadness as regards to the number of wives and the permanence of it, in condescension to their carnality, yet in bringing it back to it's original standard Jesus distinctly stated it was male and female which God joined together, and it is that union which alone is explicitly and abundantly affirmed throughout Scripture.