Changes

The interpretive conflict regarding [[homosexuality and the Bible]] is a relatively recent one, between two fundamentally different positions.<ref>A. J. Gagnon, The Authority of Scripture in the 'Homosex' Debate"</ref> Those who hold most strongly to the traditional position see the issue of homosex (also referred to as homoeroticism)<ref> homosexual erotic activity; same gender sexual relations</ref> being dealt with as part of the laws and doctrines on sexual partners which are universally and directly applicable in all cultural contexts from the time they were given. And in which the Bible establishes and consistently confirms that only the women was made for man (1Cor. 11:9), as his uniquely compatible and complementary paracletal "helpmeet," which no other physical creation could fulfill, with purposefully created complementary physical and positional distinctions which preclude fulfillment by same gender marriage (Gn. 2:18-24; 1Cor. 11:1-12). And which sexual union God explicitly sanctioned by establishing marriage for (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4-6; Eph. 6:31), which is never established for same gender unions. But that such are excluded by design and by decrees, with gender unions being only condemned in places where they are explicitly dealt with. (Lv. 18:22; 23:13; Rm. 1:26,27), In contrast, proponents of homosex and [[same-sex marriage]] render these laws and principals as being culturally or contextually bound, and perceive homoeroticism within close same gender relationships, such as between David and Jonathan. (1Sam. 18; 2Sam. 1) Many within the former camp see the revisionism of prohomosex polemicists as a manifestation of the attempts made from the beginning (Gn. 3:1-5) to both negate what God has commanded in the [[Bible]], as well as to otherwise drastically misconstrue it's meanings, often by  sophisticated forms of sophistry, while those within the latter camp often charge the former with ignorance, and being motivated by [[homophobia]].   

The interpretive conflict regarding [[homosexuality and the Bible]] is a relatively recent one, between two fundamentally different positions.<ref>A. J. Gagnon, The Authority of Scripture in the 'Homosex' Debate"</ref> Those who hold most strongly to the traditional position see the issue of homosex (also referred to as homoeroticism)<ref> homosexual erotic activity; same gender sexual relations</ref> being dealt with as part of the laws and doctrines on sexual partners which are universally and directly applicable in all cultural contexts from the time they were given. And in which the Bible establishes and consistently confirms that only the women was made for man (1Cor. 11:9), as his uniquely compatible and complementary paracletal "helpmeet," which no other physical creation could fulfill, with purposefully created complementary physical and positional distinctions which preclude fulfillment by same gender marriage (Gn. 2:18-24; 1Cor. 11:1-12). And which sexual union God explicitly sanctioned by establishing marriage for (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4-6; Eph. 6:31), which is never established for same gender unions. But that such are excluded by design and by decrees, with gender unions being only condemned in places where they are explicitly dealt with. (Lv. 18:22; 23:13; Rm. 1:26,27)<ref>THE OLD TESTAMENT AND HOMOSEXUALITY, by Kevin L. Howard http://www.neednotfret.com/content/view/124/89/</ref>  In contrast, proponents of homosex and [[same-sex marriage]] render these laws and principals as being culturally or contextually bound, and perceive homoeroticism within close same gender relationships, such as between David and Jonathan. (1Sam. 18; 2Sam. 1) Many within the former camp see the revisionism of prohomosex polemicists as a manifestation of the attempts made from the beginning (Gn. 3:1-5) to both negate what God has commanded in the [[Bible]], as well as to otherwise drastically misconstrue it's meanings, often by  sophisticated forms of sophistry, while those within the latter camp often charge the former with ignorance, and being motivated by [[homophobia]].   

== Foundational Issues ==

== Foundational Issues ==

Those who hold to the traditional position of unconditional prohibition of homoeroticism usually work from a strong adherence to the theological foundation of Biblical infallibility, in which God, as the author of [[Holy Scripture]], made His will for man evident and to be obeyed, especially as concerning basic doctrines and laws for attitude and behavior. This position holds that proper exegesis requires the use of proven rules of interpretation ([[hermeneutics]]), and that such confirms the transcendent relevancy of the Bible, and that it's [[moral]] laws are immutable. Rather than every man doing that which is right according to his judgment, (Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6) man is to be subject to the holy, just and good laws of God, (Rm. 7:12) which are to His benefit when obeyed, and to man's detriment when forsaken. (Dt. 28) In so seeking to live by every word of God, (Mt. 4:4) it becomes evident that a basic literalistic approach to Biblical exegesis is required, so that while interpretations are understood within the context of their respective literary genres, a wide range of metaphorical meanings of the historical narratives, in particular, are disallowed. In addition, historically Christian theologians have overall seen the laws of God manifested as within different categories, basically those of immutable transcendent laws, out of which cultural applications are made, and ceremonial laws, which were typological of Christ and His working under the New Covenant. (Colosians 2:16,17; Hebrews 9:10)<ref>The Authority Of God's Law Today, Greg L. Bahnsen</ref>   

Those who hold to the traditional position of unconditional prohibition of homoeroticism usually work from a strong adherence to the theological foundation of Biblical infallibility, in which God, as the author of [[Holy Scripture]], made His will for man evident and to be obeyed, especially as concerning basic doctrines and laws for attitude and behavior. This position holds that proper exegesis requires the use of proven rules of interpretation ([[hermeneutics]]), and that such confirms the transcendent relevancy of the Bible, and that it's [[moral]] laws are immutable. Rather than every man doing that which is right according to his judgment, (Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6) man is to be subject to the holy, just and good laws of God, (Rm. 7:12) which are to His benefit when obeyed, and to man's detriment when forsaken. (Dt. 28) In so seeking to live by every word of God, (Mt. 4:4) it becomes evident that a basic literalistic approach to Biblical exegesis is required, so that while interpretations are understood within the context of their respective literary genres, a wide range of metaphorical meanings of the historical narratives, in particular, are disallowed. In addition, historically Christian theologians have overall seen the laws of God manifested as within different categories, basically those of immutable transcendent laws, out of which cultural applications are made, and ceremonial laws, which were typological of Christ and His working under the New Covenant. (Colosians 2:16,17; Hebrews 9:10)<ref>The Authority Of God's Law Today, Greg L. Bahnsen</ref>   

As relates to homosexuality, and in particular homoerotic relations, consistent with the [[conservative]] position that God  made basic doctrines and laws for human behavior evident and to be obeyed, the laws and principals concerning human sexual partners are seen as universal and transcendent. In examining such they are able to abundantly and consistently evidence that from the beginning all sexual relations outside marriage were and are categorized as fornication (1Cor. 7:2). And as regards homosexuality, that the explicit sanction of '''heterosexual''' relations by marriage stands in contrast to the lack of any establishment for such sanction between '''homosexuals'''. This conspicuous absence is not found to be constrained by cultural considerations, but rather is due to homosexual relations being foundationally contrary to God's design and decrees, in which only the women was created from man and for man, in order to make man sexually complete, being uniquely complementary and compatible to that end, and is alone sexually joined to him in marriage (Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4-6 1 Cor. 11:8-9). In addition, in the places where homoerotic relations are explicitly dealt with it is only condemned. These injunctions are manifest as being part of the immutable moral law of God, and unconditional in scope, not simply applicable to certain cultural or behavioral conditions.<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/NewsweekMillerHomosexResp.htm Prof. Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon</ref><ref>Straight or Narrow? Sexuality from the Beginning, Thomas E.Schmidt</ref>  As evangelical Bible scholar [[Greg Bahnsen]] stated, "God’s verdict on homosexuality is inescapably clear. His law is a precise interpretation of the sexual order of creation for fallen man, rendering again His intention and direction for sexual relations. When members of the same sex (homo-sexual) practice intercourse with each other...they violate God’s basic creation order in a vile and abominable fashion."<ref>Bahnsen, Homosexuality: A Biblical View (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1978), p. 36.</ref>  

As relates to homosexuality, and in particular homoerotic relations, consistent with the [[conservative]] position that God  made basic doctrines and laws for human behavior evident and to be obeyed, the laws and principals concerning human sexual partners are seen as universal and transcendent. In examining such they are able to abundantly and consistently evidence that from the beginning all sexual relations outside marriage were and are categorized as fornication (1Cor. 7:2). And as regards homosexuality, that the explicit sanction of '''heterosexual''' relations by marriage stands in contrast to the lack of any establishment for such sanction between '''homosexuals'''. This conspicuous absence is not found to be constrained by cultural considerations, but rather is due to homosexual relations being foundationally contrary to God's design and decrees, in which only the women was created from man and for man, in order to make man sexually complete, being uniquely complementary and compatible to that end, and is alone sexually joined to him in marriage (Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4-6 1 Cor. 11:8-9). In addition, in the places where homoerotic relations are explicitly dealt with, it is only condemned, with these injunctions being universal in scope not simply applicable to certain cultural conditions or behavioral conditions.<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/NewsweekMillerHomosexResp.htm Prof. Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon</ref><ref>Straight or Narrow? Sexuality from the Beginning, Thomas E.Schmidt</ref>  As evangelical Bible scholar [[Greg Bahnsen]] stated, "God’s verdict on homosexuality is inescapably clear. His law is a precise interpretation of the sexual order of creation for fallen man, rendering again His intention and direction for sexual relations. When members of the same sex (homo-sexual) practice intercourse with each other...they violate God’s basic creation order in a vile and abominable fashion."<ref>Bahnsen, Homosexuality: A Biblical View (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1978), p. 36.</ref> Calvin Smith objectively concludes, "the  weak revisionist exegetical arguments, together with far more convincing traditionalist rebuttals,  have  led me  to  affirm  the  traditional  view more firmly than ever.<ref>CONCLUDING REMARKS, Homosexuality Revisited in Light of the Current Climate</ref>  

In contrast, those who seek to find support for sanctioned homoeroticism in Scripture typically view the Bible as a book that allows a vast range of metaphorical interpretation, even within historical narratives, and allows a much broader range of interpretation of basic moral commands and their immutability, even to the point of such being determining by contemporary cultural morality. While the issue of homosexuality and the Bible does involve certain texts which  necessitate some deep examination, in seeking to negate all injunctions contrary to homoeroticism and to wrest sanction for the same, certain hermeneutics and logic employed by pro-homosex apologists would also effectively work to negate most any moral command, and the Bible itself as a moral authority. Writers of holy writ are often essentially deemed by them to be too ignorant on the subject of homosexuality for their censure of it to be valid, thus impugning the Divine inspiration of Scripture. This effect of [[homosexual revisionism]] may be seen as a desired one, and part of the [[homosexual agenda]], and a form of [[homosexual historical revisionism.]]

In contrast, those who seek to find support for sanctioned homoeroticism in Scripture must view the Bible as a book that allows a vast range of metaphorical interpretation, even within historical narratives, and allows a much broader range of interpretation of basic moral commands and their immutability, even to the point of such being determining by contemporary cultural morality. Pastor Joseph P. Gudel notes, "It is extremely revealing to note that almost every pro-gay group within the church shares one thing in common: they reject the Bible as being fully the Word of God...Likewise, the many pro-homosexual books that have come out almost all reject - or even ridicule - the church's historic stance on the inspiration and authority of Scripture."<ref>Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture, The Authority of Scripture, Christian Research Institute Journal</ref>  While the issue of homosexuality and the Bible does involve certain texts which  necessitate some deep examination, in seeking to negate all injunctions contrary to homoeroticism and to wrest sanction for the same, certain hermeneutics and logic employed by pro-homosex apologists would also effectively work to negate most any moral command, and the Bible itself as a moral authority. Much effort is expended seeking to relegate the universally enjoined Biblical injunctions against homosex to only a formal cultic context, or pederasty, or to heterosexuals acting contrary to the orientation, while forcing homosexuality into most any close heterosexual relationship. Writers of holy writ are sometimes essentially deemed to be too ignorant on the subject of homosexuality for their censure of it to be valid, thus impugning the Divine inspiration of Scripture, as well as demonstrable sound exegesis.<ref>Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teachings of Paul: Selected Issues (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985), p. 85.</ref>  This effect may be seen as a desired one, and part of the [[homosexual agenda]], and a form of [[homosexual historical revisionism.]]

Primary homosexual apologists, such as Professor Walter Wink, view the Bible as offering no coherent sexual ethic, especially as regards homoeroticism, which teaching Wink terms “interpretative quicksand”.  Instead, he and others hold that people possess a right to sex that supercedes Biblical structural requirements for sexual unions, and essentially proposes that sexual ethics are best determined by one's own subjective understanding of Christian love. (contra. Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6; Mt.4:4)) This requires that the objective immutable moral laws of the Bible must yield to a love that can actually rejoice in iniquity (contra. 1Cor. 13:6)<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible_Wink.html</ref> <ref>"No Universally Valid Sex Standards? A Rejoinder to Walter Wink's Views on the Bible and Homosexual Practice", Gagnon http://www.robgagnon.net/Reviews.htm</ref> Likewise, pro homosexual author Robin Scroggs concludes, “Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant to today’s debate.”<ref>Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress, l983) p. 127.</ref> Episcopalian professor L. William Countryman concludes, “The gospel allows no rule against the following, in and of themselves: . . bestiality, polygamy, homosexual acts,” or “pornography.”<ref>Dirt, Greed, and Sex (Fortress, 1988)</ref> This inversion of Biblical morality is evidenced as being contrary to how the Bible was written and reads, and is commanded to be obeyed, and instead it is seen as a manifestation of idolatry, that of spiritually making God into an image more to one's own liking. (cf. Rm. 1:23)

Primary homosexual apologists, such as Professor Walter Wink, view the Bible as offering no coherent sexual ethic, especially as regards homoeroticism, which teaching Wink terms “interpretative quicksand”.  Instead, he and others hold that people possess a right to sex that supercedes Biblical structural requirements for sexual unions, and essentially proposes that sexual ethics are best determined by one's own subjective understanding of Christian love. (contra. Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6; Mt.4:4)) This requires that the objective immutable moral laws of the Bible must yield to a love that can actually rejoice in iniquity (contra. 1Cor. 13:6)<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible_Wink.html</ref> <ref>"No Universally Valid Sex Standards? A Rejoinder to Walter Wink's Views on the Bible and Homosexual Practice", Gagnon http://www.robgagnon.net/Reviews.htm</ref> Likewise, pro homosexual author Robin Scroggs concludes, “Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant to today’s debate.”<ref>Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress, l983) p. 127.</ref> William M. Kent, a member of the committee assigned by United Methodists to study homosexuality, explicitly denied the inspiration of any anti-homosex passages in the Bible, and their application today. Gary David Comstock, Protestant chaplain at Wesleyan University, advocated removing them from the canon as "dangerous".<ref>http://www.albertmohler.com/article_read.php?cid=7</ref> Episcopalian professor L. William Countryman concludes, “The gospel allows no rule against the following, in and of themselves: . . bestiality, polygamy, homosexual acts,” or “pornography.”<ref>Dirt, Greed, and Sex (Fortress, 1988)</ref> This inversion of Biblical morality is evidenced as being contrary to how the Bible was written and reads, and is commanded to be obeyed, with homosex being revealed to be a manifestation of idolatry, that of spiritually making the God of the Bible into an image more to one's own liking. (cf. Rm. 1:23)

== Principal Sources ==

== Principal Sources ==

(Mat 19:4-6)  "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them '''male and female''',  And said, For '''this cause''' shall a man leave '''father and 'mother''', and shall cleave to '''his wife''': and '''they twain shall be one flesh'''?  Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. '''What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."'

(Mat 19:4-6)  "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them '''male and female''',  And said, For '''this cause''' shall a man leave '''father and 'mother''', and shall cleave to '''his wife''': and '''they twain shall be one flesh'''?  Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. '''What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."'

The “what” of “what therefore God hath joined together” in Mt. 19:6 is specified only as the union of the male with his female counterpart, and it is only this union which is consistently, and often explicitly, stated and exampled in Scripture as having been sexually joined together by God, being based upon the creational foundation of Genesis.  It was the women, not another man, that was created out of Adam's side to be at his side, being created from part of man to be uniquely joined together with man sexually, in marriage. “The woman was created, not of dust of the earth, but from a rib of Adam, because she was formed for an inseparable unity and fellowship of life with the man, and the mode of her creation was to lay the actual foundation for the moral ordinance of marriage." <ref>Keil and Delitzsch</ref>   

The “what” of “what therefore God hath joined together” in Mt. 19:6 is specified only as the union of the male with his female counterpart, and it is only this union which is consistently stated and exampled in Scripture as having been sexually joined together by God, being based upon the creational foundation of Genesis.  It was the women, not another man, that was created out of Adam's side to be at his side, being created from part of man to be uniquely joined together with man sexually, in marriage. “The woman was created, not of dust of the earth, but from a rib of Adam, because she was formed for an inseparable unity and fellowship of life with the man, and the mode of her creation was to lay the actual foundation for the moral ordinance of marriage." <ref>Keil and Delitzsch</ref>   

In contrast to the preceding and other explicit and consistent Biblical declarations of who is joined in marriage, is the homosexual proponent's idea that a “man with man” sexual union can be valid. In attempting to negate Gn. 2:24, the assertion is made by some homosexual apologists that the joining of only opposite genders would be expected with an empty planet in need of population, and that this does not exclude same gender unions.<ref>The Bible and Same-Gender Marriage, Mary A. Tolbert</ref><ref>Richard Hasbany, Homosexuality and Religion, Procreation and the family</ref> This idea is based upon a prior and extra Biblical assumption that homosexual marriage is implicitly sanctioned in Scripture, and is not explicitly forbidden. However, but this is shown to be without warrant, and it's logical conclusions untenable. Instead, what Scripture reveals is that God uniquely created the women in order to fill the need of man being alone, the joining of which is God's declared means of creating sanctioned sexual “oneness,” which other created beings could not fill (Gn. 2:18-20). The physical compatibility of the female with her unique procreational ability itself stands in clear contrast to same gender unions, and is what Judaism's traditional opposition to homosexuality is primarily based upon,<ref>Norman Lamm, Judaism and the Modern Attitude Towards Homosexuality, p. 197-98</ref>  To suppose that the Designer created man to be sexually joined with one of his own, and with the life giving seed being injected into the orifice of man designed only for waste to comes out is itself a supreme insult to God and His power, and his precepts.<ref> Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity In The Homosexuality Debate, pp. 117-118, Thomas E. Schmidt https://www.rbc.org/questionsDetail.aspx?id=45768</ref> In addition, women here and in other places are not only revealed to be supremely and uniquely designed for sexual union with the male and the life-giving purpose of procreation within marriage, but to be man's uniquely compatible and complementary mate in more ways than just for procreation, to the glory of God. This latter aspect is perhaps most supremely revealed in the Song of Solomon.<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Song_of_Solomon.html</ref> This sanctity of sex within marriage without emphasis upon procreation is also indicated in the New Testament, where celibate singleness is esteemed (1Cor. 7:6-11), but marriage between man and women is presented as the alternative to fornication, and conjugal relations are enjoined due to what their marriage union entails (1Cor. 7:1-5), with the marriage bed being undefiled (Heb. 13:4). Jewish tradition also recognizes the importance of marital love and companionship <ref>Ketubot, 61b-62b; Feldman, 168</ref>.   

In contrast to the preceding and other explicit and consistent Biblical declarations of who is joined in marriage, is the homosexual proponent's idea that a “man with man” sexual union can be valid. In attempting to negate Gn. 2:24, the assertion is made by some homosexual apologists that the joining of only opposite genders would be expected with an empty planet in need of population, and that this does not exclude same gender unions, as procreation is longer a primary need for the human race.<ref>The Bible and Same-Gender Marriage, Mary A. Tolbert</ref><ref>Richard Hasbany, Homosexuality and Religion, Procreation and the family</ref> However, this relegation of the purpose of marriage to being simply for procreation, or dependent upon such, and it's desired conclusions are found to be untenable. Instead, what Scripture reveals is that God uniquely created the women in order to fill the need of man being alone, "that in addition to procreation, there is a unitive function of sexuality that has to do with fulfilling our need for companionship",<ref>"That Which is Unnatural" Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture, Genesis 1-2, by Joseph P. Gudel, Christian Research Institute Journal http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0108a.html</ref> the joining of which is God's declared means of creating sanctioned sexual “oneness,” which other created beings could not fill (Gn. 2:18-20). The physical compatibility of the female with her unique procreational ability itself stands in clear contrast to same gender unions,<ref>God, Marriage, and Family, p. 48, by Andreas J. Kostenberger, David W. Jones</ref> and is what Judaism's traditional opposition to homosexuality is primarily based upon.<ref>Norman Lamm, Judaism and the Modern Attitude Towards Homosexuality, p. 197-98</ref>  To suppose that the Designer created man to be sexually joined with one of his own, and with the life giving seed being injected into the orifice of man designed only for waste to comes out, is itself a supreme insult to God and His power, and his precepts.<ref> Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity In The Homosexuality Debate, pp. 117-118, Thomas E. Schmidt https://www.rbc.org/questionsDetail.aspx?id=45768</ref> That women are not only revealed to be supremely and uniquely designed for sexual union with the male and the life-giving purpose of procreation within marriage, but to be man's uniquely compatible and complementary mate in more ways than just for procreation, to the glory of God, is perhaps most supremely revealed in the Song of Solomon.<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Song_of_Solomon.html</ref> This sanctity of sex within marriage without emphasis upon procreation is also indicated in the New Testament, where celibate singleness is esteemed (1Cor. 7:7,8,24-43), but marriage between man and women is presented as the alternative to fornication, and conjugal relations are enjoined due to what their marriage union entails (1Cor. 7:1-5), with the marriage bed being undefiled (Heb. 13:4). Jewish tradition also recognizes the importance of marital love and companionship <ref>Ketubot, 61b-62b; Feldman, 168</ref>.   

The transcendent exclusivity of marriage being between male and female is seen from beginning of the Bible and throughout, in which whenever God gives instructions for sexual bonding it is always between opposite genders - even between animals, as seen in Noah's pairing (Gn. 7:9). The only marriages in the Bible are between man and women, with the Hebrew and Greek words for wife never denoting a male. In contrast to the abundant confirmation of God's sanction for heterosexual relations, in all of the Bible there exists no evidence of any homosexual marriage by God's people. “Indeed, every narrative, law, proverb, exhortation, metaphor, and piece of poetry in the Hebrew Bible having anything to do with sexual relations presupposes a male-female prerequisite.”<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/NicholasKristofGodAndSex.htm</ref> An attempt is made to make Jonathan and David's covenant a marriage (dealt with later), though that word is never used for marriage between humans, and there is nothing in the description of their relationship that establishes such, or sex. And to suppose sanction for a radical new type of marriage without legal legislation is untenable. The attempt to argue that same gender marriage must be allowed since there is no explicit command prohibiting it is readily seen as possessing the same amount of legitimacy as saying that marriage between man and animals, or between man and rocks must be allowed, as these also are not explicitly forbidden. The facts are that they need not be explicitly forbidden, as God clearly, and consistently specifies who is joined together in marriage, and designed them that way, and abundantly confirms only the union between the male and female as sanctified, and unconditionally prohibits men laying with men as with women (Lv. 18:22), which “cleaving” is intractably part of God's description of marriage.   

The transcendent exclusivity of marriage being between male and female is seen from beginning of the Bible and throughout, in which whenever God gives instructions for sexual bonding it is always between opposite genders - even between animals, as seen in Noah's pairing (Gn. 7:9). The only marriages in the Bible are between man and women, with the Hebrew and Greek words for wife never denoting a male. In contrast to the abundant confirmation of God's sanction for heterosexual relations, in all of the Bible there exists no evidence of any homosexual marriage by God's people. “Indeed, every narrative, law, proverb, exhortation, metaphor, and piece of poetry in the Hebrew Bible having anything to do with sexual relations presupposes a male-female prerequisite.”<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/NicholasKristofGodAndSex.htm</ref> An attempt is made to make Jonathan and David's covenant a marriage (dealt with later), though that word is never used for marriage between humans, and there is nothing in the description of their relationship that establishes such, or sex. The attempt to argue that same gender marriage must be allowed since there is no explicit command prohibiting it is readily seen as possessing the same amount of legitimacy as saying that marriage between man and animals, or between man and rocks must be allowed, as these also are not explicitly forbidden. The facts are that they need not be explicitly forbidden, as God clearly, and consistently specifies who is joined together in marriage, and designed them that way, and abundantly confirms only the union between the male and female as sanctified, and unconditionally prohibits men laying with men as with women (Lv. 18:22), which “cleaving” is intractably part of God's description of marriage.   

Jame B. De Young,<ref>Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Western Seminary in Portland, Oregon,</ref> in “Homosexuality,” writes, “ The creation of humans as male and female (Gn. 1) and the heterosexual union that constitutes marriage (Gn. 2) lie at the at the basis of the rest of Scripture and its comments about sexuality and marriage. A proper understanding of, and submission to, the record of Creation will guide the inquirer to the truth about homosexuality and heterosexuality. Genesis 1 — 3 clearly is foundational to other Bible texts.”

Jame B. De Young,<ref>Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Western Seminary in Portland, Oregon,</ref> in “Homosexuality,” writes, “ The creation of humans as male and female (Gn. 1) and the heterosexual union that constitutes marriage (Gn. 2) lie at the at the basis of the rest of Scripture and its comments about sexuality and marriage. A proper understanding of, and submission to, the record of Creation will guide the inquirer to the truth about homosexuality and heterosexuality. Genesis 1 — 3 clearly is foundational to other Bible texts.”

"Neither was the man created for the woman; but '''the woman for the man.'''" (v.9)

"Neither was the man created for the woman; but '''the woman for the man.'''" (v.9)

    

    

This statement of purpose hearkens back to Gn. 2:18-24, in which, after making it apparent that no other earthly creation was fitting, the women was created out of to be man's “helpmeet”, that as is uniquely abundantly manifest throughout the Bible, by design and decree she is his uniquely compatible and complementary mate in marriage, in more ways than only the procreative aspect.

This statement of purpose hearkens back to Gn. 2:18-24, in which, after making it apparent that no other earthly creation was fitting, the women was created out of to be man's “helpmeet”, that as is uniquely abundantly manifest throughout the Bible, by design and decree she is his uniquely compatible and complementary mate in marriage, in more ways than only the procreative aspect. "It is only in the heterosexual union of marriage that we find the fulfillment of God's intended order, both procreative and unitive." Gudel,"That Which is Unnatural" <ref>

 

The mutual interdependence of the women and the man is next seen in vs. 11-12</ref>

The mutual interdependence of the women and the man is next seen in vs. 11-12  

"Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.  For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God."   

"Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.  For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God."   

"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." (1Cor 7:2)  

"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." (1Cor 7:2)  

Note that here again only man and women are joined in marriage, with "husband" and "wife" denoting just that. The exhortation to celibacy in singleness (1Cor 7:7,8,25-35) is based upon the spiritual nature of the believers relationship with Christ and His kingdom and the attention it is worthy of, and perhaps (if partly) an sense of imminent trials,<ref> which surely did come, not only from opposition by Paul's own "kinsmen according to the flesh" (Rm. 9:3; cf. 1Ths. 2:16), and the turmoil following the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D., but from often intense persecutions from a procession of emperors, from Domitian (195) to Diocletian (284-305)</ref> and in no way abrogates the restriction of sexual relations to being only between opposite genders in marriage.       

Note that here again only man and women are joined in marriage, with "husband" and "wife" denoting just that. The exhortation to celibacy in singleness (1Cor 7:7,8,25-35) is based upon the spiritual nature of the believers relationship with Christ and His kingdom and the attention it is worthy of, and (if only partly) due to "the present distress", (v. 26) and perhaps a sense of imminent trials,<ref> which surely did come, not only from opposition by Paul's own "kinsmen according to the flesh" (Rm. 9:3; cf. 1Ths. 2:16), and the turmoil following the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D., but from often intense persecutions from a procession of emperors, from Domitian (195) to Diocletian (284-305)</ref> and in no way abrogates the restriction of sexual relations to being only between opposite genders in marriage.       

Some seek to render the complementarian position to make single persons less human<ref>Hasbany, Homosexuality and Religion, p. 106</ref>, but such is not case. Rather, just as it is evident under the New Testament that marriage is not universally mandated, it is clear that what is joined together in marriage is opposite genders, which makes man sexually complete, while singleness is an holy an option in it's own right, but which requires celibacy.   

Some seek to render the complementarian position to make single persons less human<ref>Hasbany, Homosexuality and Religion, p. 106</ref>, but such is not case. Rather, just as it is evident under the New Testament that marriage is not universally mandated, it is clear that what is joined together in marriage is opposite genders, which makes man sexually complete, while singleness is an holy an option in it's own right, but which requires celibacy.   

Nor does the fact that polygamous marriages were allowed in the Old Testament (even concubines were wives: Gn. 25:1; cf. 1Ch. 1:32; Gn. 30:4; cf. Gn. 35:22; 2Sam. 16:21, 22, cf.  2Sam. 20:3) in any way allow same sex marriages, as while union with more than one wife was allowed, and the New Testament restores that to the original of one wife,<ref>(Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:5 Eph. 5:22-6:2. Unlike children (Eph. 6:1), which is plural, when a individual husband is addressed, it is not "husband love your wives," but "let every one of you in particular so love his wife" (5:33). Likewise "honor thy father and mother" are singular (6:20) and presumes only one of each. A prime requirement for pastors, who are examples to be followed (2Ths. 3:7,9; Heb. 13:7), is that they only have one wife (1Tim. 3:2; Tts. 1:6; cf. 1Cor. 9:5). Likewise deacons (1Tim. 3:12)</ref> yet even an excess of wives is in keeping with the creational design and directive in which the women was created for the man, and only violates it in the number of female wives, not their gender.   

Nor does the fact that polygamous marriages were allowed in the Old Testament (even concubines were wives: Gn. 25:1; cf. 1Ch. 1:32; Gn. 30:4; cf. Gn. 35:22; 2Sam. 16:21, 22, cf.  2Sam. 20:3) in any way allow same sex marriages, as while union with more than one wife was allowed, and the New Testament restores that to the original of one wife,<ref>(Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:5 Eph. 5:22-6:2. Unlike children (Eph. 6:1), which is plural, when a individual husband is addressed, it is not "husband love your wives," but "let every one of you in particular so love his wife" (5:33). Likewise "honor thy father and mother" are singular (6:20) and presumes only one of each. A prime requirement for pastors, who are examples to be followed (2Ths. 3:7,9; Heb. 13:7), is that they only have one wife (1Tim. 3:2; Tts. 1:6; cf. 1Cor. 9:5). Likewise deacons (1Tim. 3:12) See also God, Marriage, and Family, pp. 43-45</ref> yet even an excess of wives is in keeping with the creational design and directive in which the women was created for the man, and only violates it in the number of female wives, not their gender.   

McNeill<ref>ref. by Richard Hasbany, The Church and the Homosexual, Cp. 2</ref> and others attempt  to force marriage under the New Testament to include  homosexuals due to its lower priority upon procreation, and emphasis upon essential oneness of all races in Christ. (Gal. 3:28)  However, the Bible explicitly honors romantic and erotic love between a man and his female spouse in the Song of Solomon, and otherwise reveals the marriage bond as being far more than for procreation, as the women's uniqueness as the helpmeet of the man transcends that aspect (although again, this is by no means a minor one, and which itself excludes same sex unions). And while under the New Covenant, physical procreation is not seen as having the priority evidenced in the Old Testament, yet not only is the unique union of man and women in marriage affirmed, and that sexual union only, but rather than long term sexual abstinence in marriage being promoted (or sex only as part of procreation), regular benevolent conjugal relations are actually enjoined, which are based upon to the depth of the ordained marriage union (1Cor. 7:3-5; Heb. 13:4).  

McNeill<ref>ref. by Richard Hasbany, The Church and the Homosexual, Cp. 2</ref> and others attempt  to force marriage under the New Testament to include  homosexuals due to its lower priority upon procreation, and emphasis upon essential oneness of all races in Christ. (Gal. 3:28)  However, the Bible explicitly honors romantic and erotic love between a man and his female spouse in the Song of Solomon, and otherwise reveals the marriage bond as being far more than for procreation, as the women's uniqueness as the helpmeet of the man transcends that aspect (although again, this is by no means a minor one, and which itself excludes same sex unions). And while under the New Covenant, physical procreation is not seen as having the priority evidenced in the Old Testament, yet not only is the unique union of man and women in marriage affirmed, and that sexual union only, but rather than long term sexual abstinence in marriage being promoted (or sex only as part of procreation), regular benevolent conjugal relations are actually enjoined, which are based upon to the depth of the ordained marriage union (1Cor. 7:3-5; Heb. 13:4).  

* [http://books.google.com/books?id=ZXAVf8m_HKgC&pg=PA244&lpg=PA244&dq=sodom+in+Mishnah&source=web&ots=ZjUCW3j8F9&sig=F5r2UCKKoWPAAbUnK3kYO-VdgVE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA245,M1 Homosexuality  By James B. De Young]

* [http://books.google.com/books?id=ZXAVf8m_HKgC&pg=PA244&lpg=PA244&dq=sodom+in+Mishnah&source=web&ots=ZjUCW3j8F9&sig=F5r2UCKKoWPAAbUnK3kYO-VdgVE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA245,M1 Homosexuality  By James B. De Young]

* [http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/romans_malick.pdf The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27 David E. Malick]

* [http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/romans_malick.pdf The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27 David E. Malick]