Changes

The last case of eunuchs are those who purposely choose to be single and celibate, as referred to in 1 Cor. 7:7,32-35, in order to better attend to the things that most directly pertain to the kingdom of God. Among the Essenes there were examples of this. But celibacy within marriage is actually forbidden by 1Cor. 7:5. (Note: The early church leader Origen castrated himself, literally following Matthew 19:12, perhaps to remove any hint of scandal as he taught young women their catechism.  He later came to see his action as ill-advised and not to be taken as an example.)<ref>http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/glmps054.shtml</ref>   

The last case of eunuchs are those who purposely choose to be single and celibate, as referred to in 1 Cor. 7:7,32-35, in order to better attend to the things that most directly pertain to the kingdom of God. Among the Essenes there were examples of this. But celibacy within marriage is actually forbidden by 1Cor. 7:5. (Note: The early church leader Origen castrated himself, literally following Matthew 19:12, perhaps to remove any hint of scandal as he taught young women their catechism.  He later came to see his action as ill-advised and not to be taken as an example.)<ref>http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/glmps054.shtml</ref>   

However, here some homo apologists, in an evident and extreme example of egregious exegetical sophistry, postulate or assert that at least some some of the eunuchs in the Bible, and those which Jesus referred to in Mt. 19:12, were natural born homosexuals, and controvert “all cannot receive this saying” (v. 11) to refer to the uniqueness of the male/female union of Gn. 2, and so conclude, “Jesus did not prohibit same sex marriage for born eunuchs”, asserting they are “exempt from the Adam and Eve style, heterosexual marriage paradigm”. Then, enlisting 1Cor. 1:8,9, and subjecting Scripture to man's wisdom (stating abstinence is unreasonable), the pro homosexual apologist reasons that marriage must be allowed for them <ref>Homosexual Eunuchs, Rick Brentlinger http://www.gaychristian101.com/Homosexual-Eunuchs.html</ref>  

However, here some homo apologists, in an evident and extreme example of egregious exegetical sophistry, postulate or assert that at least some some of the eunuchs in the Bible, and those which Jesus referred to in Mt. 19:12, were natural born homosexuals, and controvert “all cannot receive this saying” (v. 11) to refer to the uniqueness of the male/female union of Gn. 2, and so conclude, “Jesus did not prohibit same sex marriage for born eunuchs”, asserting they are “exempt from the Adam and Eve style, heterosexual marriage paradigm”. Then, enlisting 1Cor. 1:8,9, and subjecting Scripture to man's wisdom (stating abstinence is unreasonable), the pro homosexual apologist reasons that marriage must be allowed for them <ref>Homosexual Eunuchs, Rick Brentlinger</ref>  

While it may be true that sometimes eunuchs who were considered to have been born that way could procreate,<ref>Homosexuality p. 122; James B. De Young</ref><ref>Digest of Justinian, Vol. 1, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1998, Book XXIII.3.39.1</ref> of which some, in pagan nations, were sexually active homosexuals,<ref>Faris Malik, Eunuchs are Gay Men</ref> not simply asexual, yet Israel was not to be like other nations (Lv. 18:24,27), and to suppose that Jesus is referring to congenitally determined homosexual behavior and sanctioning such is neither warranted here or elsewhere.<ref>Transsexuality and Ordination by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D [http:www.robgagnon.net/articles/TranssexualityOrdination.pdf]</ref> Not only in Scripture but in every other extant piece of evidence about Jewish views on same-sex intercourse in the Second Temple period and beyond shows them to be consistently hostile to such behavior.<ref>Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 159-83</ref> Yet even the presumed homosexuality of eunuchs will be shown to be irrelevant, and the absurdity and invalidity of the pro homosexual apologist argument is evident from the outset and throughout.   

While it may be true that sometimes eunuchs who were considered to have been born that way could procreate,<ref>Homosexuality p. 122; James B. De Young</ref><ref>Digest of Justinian, Vol. 1, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1998, Book XXIII.3.39.1</ref> of which some, in pagan nations, were sexually active homosexuals,<ref>Faris Malik, Eunuchs are Gay Men</ref> not simply asexual, yet Israel was not to be like other nations (Lv. 18:24,27), and to suppose that Jesus is referring to congenitally determined homosexual behavior and sanctioning such is neither warranted here or elsewhere.<ref>Transsexuality and Ordination by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D [http:www.robgagnon.net/articles/TranssexualityOrdination.pdf]</ref> Not only in Scripture but in every other extant piece of evidence about Jewish views on same-sex intercourse in the Second Temple period and beyond shows them to be consistently hostile to such behavior.<ref>Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 159-83</ref> Yet even the presumed homosexuality of eunuchs will be shown to be irrelevant, and the absurdity and invalidity of the pro homosexual apologist argument is evident from the outset and throughout.