Changes

An argument presented by many prohomosex writers contends that the absence of any specific censure of homosexual relations by Jesus, with his emphasis upon love, works to disallow any Biblical prohibitions against homosex and to sanction such as long as it is consistent with love, though that itself is left to be defined rather subjectively.<ref>Wink, Homosexuality and Bible</ref><ref>Troy Perry, Don’t Be Afraid Anymore (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990), 40</ref><ref>John J. McNeil, The Church and the Homosexual (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and  

An argument presented by many prohomosex writers contends that the absence of any specific censure of homosexual relations by Jesus, with his emphasis upon love, works to disallow any Biblical prohibitions against homosex and to sanction such as long as it is consistent with love, though that itself is left to be defined rather subjectively.<ref>Wink, Homosexuality and Bible</ref><ref>Troy Perry, Don’t Be Afraid Anymore (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990), 40</ref><ref>John J. McNeil, The Church and the Homosexual (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and  

McMeel, 1976); Roger Shinn, “Homosexuality: Christian Conviction and Inquiry,” in Homosexuality</ref>  Walter Wink is one whose emphasis upon this is most pronounced, and who much depends upon the upon the hermeneutic behind it, as he readily concurs with traditionalists, in that "Simply put, the Bible is  negative toward same-sex behavior, and there is no getting around it." and that "Paul wouldn't accept [a loving homosexual] relationship for a minute." But he advocates that while sexual conventions are necessary, we are, "in the name of love, to "choose for  ourselves what is right," which he states Jesus meant in Luke 12:57.<ref>To hell with gays by Walter Wink</ref>

McMeel, 1976); Roger Shinn, “Homosexuality: Christian Conviction and Inquiry,” in Homosexuality</ref>  Walter Wink is one whose emphasis upon this is most pronounced, and who much depends upon the upon the hermeneutic behind it, as he readily concurs with traditionalists, in that "Simply put, the Bible is  negative toward same-sex behavior, and there is no getting around it." and that "Paul wouldn't accept [a loving homosexual] relationship for a minute." But he advocates that while sexual conventions are necessary, we are, "in the name of love, to "choose for  ourselves what is right," which he states Jesus meant in Luke 12:57.<ref>"To hell with gays," by Walter Wink</ref>

Traditional scholars and writers respond by exposing the spurious nature of the hermeneutics (principals of interpretation) involved with this strategy. Determining what is moral based upon whether Jesus explicitly condemned it could also sanction for the practice of consensual incest, pedophilia, bestiality, or even  cannibalism. Gagnon asks, "shall we claim that Jesus had weaker convictions about bestiality and incest [than marriage] on the grounds that he said not a word about these subjects?"<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/2VOnlineNotes.htm Notes to Gagnon’s Essay in the Gagnon-Via Two Views Book]</ref> While love must be the motive, motive by itself does not determine the validity of an action, and by using the "love justifies" hermeneutic, one could easily justify consensual premarital fornication, polyamory, wife swapping and prostitution, among other sins.  Jesus silence is understood as being expected due to the extreme unlikelihood  that homosexual relations would have been a prevalent problem among the Jews who Jesus came to first minister to,<ref>Stanley J. Grenz, Welcoming But Not Affirming, p. 61</ref> nor would incest have been, and that Jesus clearly upheld Old Testament moral laws,<ref> http://www.robgagnon.net/homoAuthorityScripture.htm</ref> and highly esteemed John the Baptist who rebuked Herod for an incestuous marriage. (Mk. 6:18; cf. Lv. 18:16; 20:21)  

Traditional scholars and writers respond by exposing the spurious nature of the hermeneutics (principals of interpretation) involved with this strategy. Determining what is moral based upon whether Jesus explicitly condemned it could also sanction the practice of consensual incest, pedophilia, bestiality, or even  cannibalism. Gagnon asks, "shall we claim that Jesus had weaker convictions about bestiality and incest [than marriage] on the grounds that he said not a word about these subjects?"<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/2VOnlineNotes.htm Notes to Gagnon’s Essay in the Gagnon-Via Two Views Book]</ref> While love must be the motive, motive by itself does not determine the validity of an action, and by using the "love justifies" hermeneutic, one could easily justify consensual premarital fornication, polyamory, wife swapping and prostitution, among other sins.  The commandment sometimes invoked to support homosexual relations, "thou shalt shall love thy neighbor as thyself", (Lv. 19:18) is placed after and before laws which detail how, and which respectively unequivocally forbid and penalize homosex. Jesus silence is understood as being expected due to the extreme unlikelihood  that homosexual relations would have been a prevalent problem among the Jews who Jesus came to first minister to,<ref>Stanley J. Grenz, Welcoming But Not Affirming, p. 61</ref> nor would incest have been, and that Jesus clearly upheld Old Testament moral laws,<ref> http://www.robgagnon.net/homoAuthorityScripture.htm</ref> and highly esteemed John the Baptist who rebuked Herod for an incestuous marriage. (Mk. 6:18; cf. Lv. 18:16; 20:21)  

It is also seen that while Jesus did not specify every expression of sin, He dealt with the foundational issue behind them, and their primary expressions. Sin is stated to begin in the heart, and the iniquities that come out of the heart including fornications, (Mk. 7:20-23) which being plural, includes all sexual relations outside marriage, as well as adultery. In dealing with the latter, Jesus is shown to have instituted stricter requirements for marriage, based upon its original establishment, and in invoking such the man and the women are specified as what constitutes "what" God hath joined together (Mt. 19:4-6; cf. Gn. 1:26,27; 2:18-24).<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/homosexuality_and_the_bible.html The Bible and Homosexuality; Mark 7:7 Did Jesus include homosexuality in “fornication?]</ref><ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homoWinkHBTResp.pdf "Are There Universally Valid Sex Precepts? A Critique of Walter Wink's Views on the Bible and Homosexuality"]</ref><ref>[http://www.westernsem.edu/files/westernsem/gagnon_autm05_0.pdf GAGNON, WHY THE DISAGREEMENT OVER THE BIBLICAL WITNESS ON HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICE? A Response to Myers and Scanzoni, What God Has Joined Together?]</ref>  

It is also seen that while Jesus did not specify every expression of sin, He dealt with the foundational issue behind them, and their primary expressions. Sin is stated to begin in the heart, and the iniquities that come out of the heart including fornications, (Mk. 7:20-23) which being plural, includes all sexual relations outside marriage, as well as adultery. In dealing with the latter, Jesus is shown to have instituted stricter requirements for marriage, based upon its original establishment, and in invoking such the man and the women are specified as what constitutes "what" God hath joined together (Mt. 19:4-6; cf. Gn. 1:26,27; 2:18-24).<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/homosexuality_and_the_bible.html The Bible and Homosexuality; Mark 7:7 Did Jesus include homosexuality in “fornication?]</ref><ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homoWinkHBTResp.pdf "Are There Universally Valid Sex Precepts? A Critique of Walter Wink's Views on the Bible and Homosexuality"]</ref><ref>[http://www.westernsem.edu/files/westernsem/gagnon_autm05_0.pdf GAGNON, WHY THE DISAGREEMENT OVER THE BIBLICAL WITNESS ON HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICE? A Response to Myers and Scanzoni, What God Has Joined Together?]</ref>